The purposive standards used for selection to the sample included (a) full-time ..... faculty of a local university, were each published in peer-reviewed journals, ...
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? A STUDY OF COMMUNICATION AMONG TEACHERS OF AT-RISK STUDENTS THROUGH RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION by Christine Tucker SHIRLAN MOSLEY-JENKINS, EdD, Faculty Mentor and Chair MICHAEL JAZZAR, PhD, Committee Member ADRIENNE GIBSON, PhD, Committee Member
James A. Wold, PhD, Interim Dean, School of Education
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University June 2015
UMI Number: 3714755
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3714755 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Christine Tucker, 2015
Abstract Response to intervention (RtI) has created a need to shift from the excluded special education model to a more inclusive model creating a need for increased communication and collaboration when students are exposed to instruction in multiple settings. The basic qualitative research design was used to explore the types and level of communication and collaboration that exists among educators who work with at-risk students through the RtI model in a single South Carolina school district. The study included six teachers and six interventionists, who participated in focus group discussions, classroom observations, and individual personal interviews, and four administrators who participated in individual interviews. The findings of this study indicated, for the most part, that educators held positive attitudes in their role within the organization and his or her ability to communicate and collaborate to effectively provide sound instruction for struggling learners. All participants were aware that the need for collaboration and the need to share information were everyone’s responsibility and a necessary part of supporting each student. The findings suggest that administrators felt structures were in place for communication and collaboration to exist among educators, however no suggestion of a common planning time within the daily schedule nor examples from teachers or interventionists in true collaborative roles were evident. Moreover, interventionists were best able to describe examples of true collaborative efforts they had initiated with teachers to coordinate skills or concepts they were teaching in their classrooms. The findings show, the interventionists hope for a change in the current policy in most schools, which excludes the interventionists from data team meetings and RtI meetings where next steps in the child’s education plan are formulated and decided.
Dedication This work is dedicated to my family who endured countless lost moments of my time and energy while I focused on my research and writing. To my daughter, Judy Bartlett, who constantly had time to give her full support to my efforts, even with a large family herself. Judy, you knew just how to help me see the humor through the pain. To my son Jacob Colborn, who continues to amaze me with his wealth of knowledge and ability to embrace new opportunities with self-assurance. Jacob, you are an amazing man and much like your late father, Jake Colborn. To my son, Joey Colborn, who has a heart to help others without expecting anything in return. Joey, you have been a constant source of pride and are loved by everyone with whom you share your talents. Your dad would be as proud of each of you as I am; and it is my hope that I have inspired you, my children, to realize that it is never too late to set and accomplish new goals. I would also like to dedicate this work, in loving memory, to my mother, Caroline Radachy, who worried over me more than a parent should; and to my sisters, Cindy Kime and Marian Hare, along with many friends who are like family to me, especially Tena Vernon and Lynne Hester, who never hesitated to ask about my progress and encourage me through this journey. It is with pride that I can now report, “I’m done!” Finally, I am thankful that I am able to share in my accomplishments with my husband of just over a year, Rex Tucker, who has endured the final stages of my writing and provided the support I needed through constant prayer and self-sacrifice. Rex, I could not have done this work without your supportive love and I am proud to have you by my side as we age. It is you who keeps me grounded and who provides me with the security to be my best; in full service to God and to the ministry He has designed for us. iii
Acknowledgments The ability to complete this dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support of so many people; however first and foremost, I wish to acknowledge our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ for answering many prayers for strength and understanding. It is though His power that I am able to equip myself for His work in this world. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Shirlan Mosley-Jenkins, my eversupportive mentor, committee chair, and trusted advisor, whose time, encouragement, and words of wisdom turned some of my most challenging moments into stepping-stones to success. In addition, I would be remiss if I did not also give a special and heart-felt thank you to my committee members, Dr. Michael Jazzar, and Dr. Adrienne Gibson, who provided guidance and asked thought-provoking questions that enabled me to think deeply and critically. You have helped me to become a true scholar in the field! In addition, it is an honor and privilege to have worked with the education faculty of a nearby university who gave of their time freely through many iterations of the interviewquestioning route used in the data collection phase of this research. Finally, I am extremely grateful to the administrators and teachers who took time from their busy schedules and agreed to be a part of the study. Without your willingness to participate, this research would not have been possible. I believe God has placed each of these persons in my path during this process to guide and support me though a variety of special relationships. I praise His Holy Name and am thankful beyond measure that He saw fit for me to complete this journey with incredible growth and success.
iii
Table of Contents Acknowledgments
iv
List of Tables
viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1
Introduction to the Problem
1
Background, Context, and Theoretical Framework
4
Statement of the Problem
7
Purpose of the Study
8
Research Questions
11
Rationale, Relevance, and Significance of the Study
12
Nature of the Study
16
Definition of Terms
17
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
20
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
21
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
23
Introduction to the Literature Review
23
Theoretical Framework
25
Review of Research Literature and Methodological Literature
26
Review of Research regarding Communication Among Educators
26
Role Theory
29
Response to Intervention
33
Communication
36
Collaboration
40 iv
Push-In VS Pullout Services
43
Review of Methodological Issues
47
Synthesis of Research Findings
51
Critique of Previous Research
53
Chapter 2 Summary
54
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
57
Introduction to Chapter 3
57
Research Design
59
Target Population, Sampling Method, and Related Procedures
64
Data Collection
71
Field Test
74
Data Analysis Procedures
75
Limitations of the Research Design
78
Credibility
79
Transferability
79
Expected Findings
80
Ethical Issues
82
Chapter 3 Summary
85
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
87
Introduction
87
Description of the Setting and Participants
89
Research Methodology and Analysis
104
Summary of the Findings
106 v
Detailed Analysis
108
Chapter 4 Summary
125
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
128
Introduction
128
Summary of the Findings
129
Discussion of the Findings
138
Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the Literature
141
Limitations
145
Implication of the Findings for Practice
146
Recommendations for Further Research
148
Conclusion
148
REFERENCES
152
APPENDIX A. Statement of Original Work
160
APPENDIX B. Focus Group Questioning Route
162
vi
List of Tables Table 1. District Schools Represented
90
Table 2. Teacher Participants
91
Table 3. Intervention Participants
92
Table 4. Administrator Participants
93
Table 5. Classroom Observation Data
94
Table 6. Occurrence of Theme by Group
107
vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In schools across the nation, teachers and students are doing the ‘business of school’ with an increasing weight on test scores and requirements to meet rigorous standards for basic education. Students are repeatedly measured against the norm to determine if the child will be able to produce a score at or above the ever-rising minimum state standard score for each grade-level (Klein, Zevenbergen, & Brown, 2006; Lynd, 2000). This pressure is daunting enough for a student who has excelled at school each year, but what is being done to boost the odds for the struggling student? What systems are in place in the school to ensure all teachers are working together to support the special needs of children who are falling behind? One such system designed to help educators identify children who are not making adequate yearly progress and provide data to identify an appropriate course of study to close the gap is response to intervention (Danielson, Bradley, & Doolittle, 2007; Sansosti & Noltemeyer, 2008; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008). Response to intervention (RtI) is intended to provide teachers and administrators a systematic way to thoroughly examine a struggling student’s multiple data points to determine the best individualized educational course and provide remediation to ensure the student is successful. According to Murawski and Hughes (2009), response to intervention is a means by which educators can support struggling students in the general 1
education classroom. In the response to intervention (RtI) model, the classroom teacher uses data gathered from research-based intervention strategies in an attempt to meet the students’ needs through manipulation of the learning environment, product, or process. This is a shift away from a reactive approach to a proactive approach (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007). RtI is a structured system categorized by three tiers, or levels, of support for all students. It is through the data collection and review that teachers and parents may consider the possibilities of why a child may be falling behind the other children when offered core instruction that is meeting the needs of the average student in the classroom. The parent may notice struggles during homework exercises or less than stellar grades on the report card each term; the teacher may notice struggles when the student is not able to grasp the concepts that others in the class find clear and understandable. At any point in the student’s education, a team can be initiated to study the individual needs of a student and implement interventions at the lowest level (Tier I), which is provided by the classroom teacher within the general core curriculum. When measures taken at Tier I are not adequate for the student to show adequate progress, the team may suggest interventions at the secondary level (Tier II), which includes a supplemental program in addition to the instruction and core curriculum the student is receiving in the general classroom (Diamond & Duran, 2012). As the team continues to study the progress through weekly monitoring and determines the student is not responding with adequate success, the team may recommend a tertiary level of intervention (Tier III), along with increased testing by the psychologist, providing parent consent, for a specific disability (Ramaswami, 2010). 2
The RtI model is designed to be flexible so that the course of study or current interventions being provided can be altered to fit a student’s need at any point in time. Torgesen (2007) describes one of the two major axioms of RtI as most students making significant gains in academic achievement when targeted and closely monitored interventions are provided. When a person outside the homeroom teacher’s classroom provides programs for remediation, the need for communication and collaboration exists (Wilcox, Murakami-Ramalho, & Urick, 2013). The extent and nature of this communication is varied among teachers and interventionists. Collaboration offers opportunities for interactions that provide structure and flexible instructional options at the time the intervention is needed; this type of collaboration is necessary for RtI to reach its goals (Murawski & Hughes, 2009). Collaboration is necessary but flexible instructional options are not the norm in a public elementary school where time on task is essential for student achievement (Cuban, 2008; Masci, 2008). The instructional day is organized to provide the maximum time on task and under direct instruction so that the extensive array of minimum standards can be taught at the highest levels. Administrators are charged with directing all facets of the school environment to ensure student achievement is the focus (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). This includes orchestrating numerous schedules to accommodate the educational plans of hundreds of students. Providing response to intervention is intended to diminish the number of children identified as needing special education and remediating the deficiency early on in order to correct the problem and return the student to the mainstream classroom (Palenchar & Boyer, 2008). Along with this idea of
3
collaboration and communication comes the need for teachers and interventionists to maintain a level of trust in the other’s work. Effective collaboration and communication requires a certain level of comfort with both the teacher’s and interventionist’s own expertise and subject knowledge. Conflict may arise during these interactions when the role of each teacher is questioned. The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities determines the intervention will be presented to students by specialists and support staff, which includes the special education teacher, reading or learning specialists, related services personnel, and paraprofessionals (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). Each of these roles are held by people with a wide variety of specialization ranging from board-approved certified teachers, such as special education teachers, through paraprofessionals with limited district-provided certification. Being able to offer and accept constructive criticism and suggestions is necessary for both educators to provide a more cohesive and seamless level of instruction for the struggling learner. When the student is able to transfer the understanding between both classrooms and ultimately other settings, then progress toward increased academic achievement will be realized.
Background The study of RtI has been a focus in the literature for the last decade; however, there is a need to go beyond the issue of how to place children in the appropriate tiered intervention and the duration of each level. Until the team members work together to form a cohesive educational experience for the struggling student, the work will fall short of the goal of adequate yearly progress (Wilcox, Murakami-Ramalho, & Urick, 2013). 4
Murawski and Hughes (2009) explain that collaboration cannot be minimized if educators are to accomplish the proactive approach of meeting the needs of each child through researched-based instruction. This collaboration will need to be perfected to ensure that students with the most critical needs are provided the consistent support necessary to affect academic growth no matter the delivery model of RtI. The appropriateness of providing instruction within the current classroom model or pulling the student out of the classroom to work with a designated interventionist, who is trained in providing accommodations, continues to be debated. Another approach is to have a qualified specialist in the general education classroom for services a specified part of the day. These methods require student-focused coaching and are based on collaborative solutions by both the specialist and classroom teacher (Hasbrouck & Denton, 2007). As the general education teachers and interventionists work together to provide the right fit for each child, a need for communication among the educators is essential.
Context Although the literature is clear in regard to the need for a collaborative team approach to RtI (Byrnes, 2009; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Wright, 2007), little information is found describing the current state of communication efforts or suggesting best practice in maintaining adequate collaboration to ensure at-risk students will demonstrate growth at a rate that will enable them to catch-up to their peers. By understanding the state of communication and collaboration in elementary schools today, it will be possible to classify recurring themes and determine if patterns emerge within 5
the data to identify successful management of communication strategies, or areas on which improvements can be made to support the efforts of educators in meeting the atrisk students’ needs.
Theoretical Framework According to Allington (2004), research supports the fact that some children will need intensive intervention if they are to maintain an expected level of proficiency. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Stecker (2010) explain the two perspectives on response to intervention from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) groups and consider neither as having a credible plan for educating children with severe learning needs. The IDEA remains tied to the distinct special education labels for intervention such as resource, self-contained, and even more restrictive classifications. In contrast, NCLB proposes a more fluid approach such as differentiated instruction, team problem solving, and expert consultation in their three-tiered model. The “blurring” of special education and general education lines, as Fuchs, Fuchs, and Stecker (2010) refer to the new continuum of placement and services, leads to a greater need for ongoing, effective communication among all teachers who work with at-risk students. Both promote interventions, sound teaching, and identification of those children who fail to meet the minimum state standards to be referred for more intensive instruction including special education and that the effectiveness of the core academic and behavior programs alone may not be effective for all students (Kovaleski, 2007).
6
Statement of the Problem A need exists for increased communication and collaboration when students are exposed to several teachers offering remediation to ensure children are able to be successful; not only in acquiring knowledge, but also in transferring the information in multiple settings. Response to intervention has completely shifted from the excluded special education department to a more inclusive model. Johnson and Pugach (1996) describe situations where general educators and special educators have very different skill sets causing general educators to doubt their ability to meet the needs of at-risk students through individualized instruction in the heterogeneous classroom. Today, general educators are expected to individually instruct and assess the ongoing progress of at-risk students in Tier 1 of the RtI model. Through RtI, remediation within the least restrictive environment can catch and correct problems before they become much larger gaps in understanding that are not likely to be corrected without more intensive intervention. The response to intervention system provides students with help at earlier stages in their learning which may mean a disability can be prevented altogether or the impact of a disability lessened (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008). In order for the RtI model to be successful and therefore beneficial for at-risk students, the RtI team must make efforts to collaborate and coordinate services and remediation that is appropriate for the individual student. When students are removed from the classroom for services, there is a greater need to help the student transition from one setting to another and transfer the strategies that were practiced with the interventionist.
7
Hazelkorn and colleagues (2011) found that general education teachers, although they are the major facilitators of Tier 1 intervention, have very little understanding of the RtI process. This study will incorporate the use of role theory in understanding the perceptions of the participants when working with these data. The RtI process is dependent on the educators involved to work together to provide the necessary support for the struggling student. These exchanges will best be studied through personal interactions, interviews, and focus group discussions and these data will be most effectively collected through qualitative methods. It is not known to what extent the communication among the educators who work with at-risk students impacts the support necessary to ensure the student makes adequate yearly progress in the elementary school setting.
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine how the role of teachers, interventionists, and administrators determines the effectiveness of communication among the team who work with at-risk students through response to intervention. In addition, throughout this qualitative study, the researcher will examine the level of interaction and communication among these educators and the effect each has on the at-risk learner’s ability to make adequate academic achievement with the goal of returning the student to the general education classroom. During this study, the researcher will use the social constructivist worldview (Creswell, 2009) approach to gather the complex views of the participants in order to construct meaning from their experiences within the group and in the workplace. Creswell (2009) explains that the social constructivist approach to data collection relies, 8
as much as possible, on the views of those participating in the study in regard to the situation being studied. A need exists to study the communication and the interactions of the educators involved with regard to each person’s educational role, the division of perceived responsibility between the general educator and interventionist, and the influence of the administrator within the group. This qualitative study will be approached through a generic qualitative inquiry, which according to Merriam (2002) is a strategy of inquiry that results in a descriptive outcome using an inductive strategy to understand how participants make meaning of a situation. Understanding these interactions will bring about awareness among the team members, reveal processes that yield benefits which can be replicated within other teams, or determine where improvement can be considered. The purpose of the study is to examine the methods and effectiveness of communication among teachers and administrators who work with at-risk children through a response to intervention model in order to replicate effective components and enhance ineffective elements of the team’s collaboration efforts to advance academic achievement for struggling students. According to Murawski and Hughes (2009), response to intervention is designed to support struggling students in the general education classroom. Today’s upper elementary classrooms are filled with children with unique learning styles, diverse needs, and a variety of academic challenges. In an effort to meet regulations and laws which stem from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the need to identify and serve struggling students, teachers are expected to work collaboratively to undertake the task of providing the educational resources that will bring about increased 9
student achievement. In order for this effort to be valuable, the ability for educators to communicate effectively at all levels and work as a team is essential. The generic qualitative study will provide a platform to understand the experiences of the educators who participate in the response to intervention and the teachers’ unique need to collaborate in an effort to provide a cohesive and solid link between the homeroom teacher and interventionist. As the student moves from one classroom setting to another, the ability of the teachers to provide the consistent patterns and prompts that will support the learner with familiar routines and best practice in retaining, applying, and transferring knowledge among these diverse settings is essential. This type of removal from the general education classroom is of particular concern. Most children who show a delay severe enough to warrant removal from the classroom for more intensive intervention will struggle with the material that was missed when they are out of the room. Woodward & Talbert-Johnson (2009) explain that some children will need the more intensive instruction provided by an expert for some length of time – possibly their entire school career. While children are out of the classroom, instruction must continue, thus placing the student who is out of the room at risk of falling behind in other subjects. The generic qualitative study will be used to gather information about the type of communication that is deemed valuable to the individual student’s situation and the amount of time provided for the teacher and interventionist to talk, share notes and assessments, or discuss student progress. A study conducted by Woodward and Talbert-Johnson (2009) found classroom teachers and interventionists or specialists preferred to have some time with the child outside the classroom setting, however responders indicated finding time to monitor 10
progress or take grades is seriously diminished when the student is out of the room. In a comparison of in-class and pullout models, positive aspects of students’ additional services were analyzed and included less travel time to and from class which equates to more time spent in instruction and negative aspects, which included vast differences in teaching styles that may confuse the struggling student. The qualitative study will enable the researcher to provide answers to these questions through focus groups and individual interviews that are designed to gather information to better understand how the communication is positively or negatively affecting the struggling students’ progress.
Research Questions In what ways do teachers, interventionists, and administrators interact and communicate to support the academic success of at-risk learners? •
In what ways do RtI team members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress?
•
In what ways do RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress?
•
In what ways do RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another?
•
In what ways do the RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team?
11
Rationale This research topic is a study of the communication among teachers of at-risk students who are removed from the classroom to work with a school interventionist through the response to intervention model. The types and level of communication among these teachers was studied through focus groups and individual interviews. In addition, data was collected to determine the effect these types of communication have on student achievement. The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 brought about a shift from the wait-to-fail model of identifying children with IQ/achievement discrepancies to one focused on intervention and measurable outcomes – response to intervention (Powers & Mandal, 2011). In the tiered model of providing support and intervention, the RtI model is designed to reduce the number of students who become labeled with a disability by providing early monitoring and remediation thus, according to Lipson, Chomsky-Higgins, and Kanfer (2011), preventing difficulties. This preventive model reduces inappropriate referrals to special education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Proctor, Greenfield, Cardarelli, & Rinaldi, 2010; Klingner & Edwards, 2006) and includes efforts such as universal screenings, academic progress monitoring, evidencedbased instruction, and interventions to address student needs, and may include adapting the core curriculum for a short time, small-group differentiated instruction, and intensive one-on-one instruction depending on the need of each student. This instruction may include teachers outside the general education classroom, such as a trained interventionist or special education teacher. Not surprising, one cornerstone to the successful implementation of RtI is the need for communication and collaboration among the team of professionals who work with at-risk students. 12
This type of collaboration, continues Basham (2010), requires flexible scheduling for planning time and collaborative work; this flexible and fluid support will logistically require administrative support. The successful implementation of RtI within a school must be a part of the school culture. Providing an environment that supports scientifically based instructional practices, learning strategies, support of individual students, and a collaborative effort to ensure student achievement is directly aligned with the leadership of the administration. In addition, the confidence that all educators who work with the at-risk student are effective in their ability to increase student achievement is necessary when children are leaving the homeroom teacher to work with the interventionist. The role of each person within the organization and the level of accountability of each person who works with the at-risk student is a concern according to Pool, Carter, and Johnson (2011). Teacher perception of a school-wide change from traditional methods of identifying children with special needs to a tiered model requires a climate of teacher collaboration and communication among educators (Greenfield, Westwell, Plateau, Dommett & Devonshire, 2011).
Relevance This study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge by providing specific data about how educators are attempting to communicate with one another to support the learning for at-risk students. Caldarella, Munk, and Gibb (2010) suggest the need for collaboration in the planning, scheduling, and identification phases, however, how to provide specific information that will improve the ability of teacher, interventionist and administrators to collaborate with one another more frequently or more effectively is the 13
goal of this research. In addition, consistency with implementing practices such as “datadriven instruction” can mean very different things to educators, especially at different levels in an organization (Colburn & Talbert, 2006). Current practices that are successful and can be replicated among all response to intervention teams can produce a positive impact on student achievement. This problem is worthy of further research to understand the effects of a response to intervention collaborative team approach to the decision making process of students who need additional resources to show adequate yearly progress. Shepherd and Salembier (2011) discuss the need for a strong team and administrative leadership input in the rural schools. In addition, the need for the general education teacher to work with interventionists and administrators should be studied to determine the extent the educator’s role affects the communication process. Although there is a great deal of existing research focused around the response to intervention model, this study is being conducted to determine the interactions among the team members as they work through the RtI process to affect student achievement. This study will enable the researcher to extend prior research of a response to intervention model as an alternative to the wait-to-fail model (Donovan & Cross, 2002) by placing a focus on the current communication and collaboration practice of teachers, interventionists, and administrators. By examining the interactions of the participants through focus groups, interviews, and observations, the researcher will seek to understand the current levels of collaboration and communication and determine the participants’ perception of such encounters. Data will be collected that will focus on communication through verbal and nonverbal interactions and the researcher will seek to understand the 14
type and depth of information participants share to affect student achievement. The researcher will collect these data and build themes through an inductive process using open-ended questioning and follow-up interviews. Significance This research differs from the existing body of knowledge by using the information gathered about the personal experiences teachers and administrators have during the RtI process and the researcher will seek to determine a pattern of strategies and interactions that are beneficial to the struggling student. These data will be collected in order to gather the types and levels of interactions occurring within the collaboration efforts of the response to intervention model and determine which methods are beneficial and can be replicated. The research question guiding this study is designed to search out the ways teachers, interventionists, and administrators interact and communicate to support the academic success of at-risk learners. According to Harlacher and Siler (2011) there is a substantial amount of literature and research defining RtI, what it is, and how it may look within the schools; however, there is little research on how to implement RtI successfully. Because successful implementation within a school is vital to the positive effect on student achievement, it is critical that an emphasis be placed on providing educators with direct and specific procedures that will enhance the work of the RtI team. By determining the extent that communication among educators who work with at-risk students impacts the support necessary to ensure student achievement, a clearer picture of how to foster effective collaboration among the team will be evident.
15
Harlacher and Siler (2011) identify a set of factors associated with the successful implementation of RtI, which include professional development, staff “buy-in,” leadership, time for collaboration, broad ownership, resources, accountability, and family involvement. In addition, implementation of RtI as a three to five year process is reasonable (Tilly, Harken, Robinson, & Kurns, 2008). As the staff becomes more familiar with the response to intervention model, it is imperative that a focus on collaboration and communication among the team exist, which may be a difficult barrier to break due to the historic practices of many teachers working in isolation. One important change necessary in the successful outcome of effective implementation of the RtI model is a routine system of communication (Johnson, Pool, & Carter, 2011). This study will advance the scientific knowledge base by identifying the forms of communication and collaboration necessary to impact student achievement, and determine the effect of the professional’s role within the organization on the collaborative process. Improving the ability of the RtI team to collaborate and communicate effectively with one another and identifying the practices that can be replicated among all RtI teams is a goal of this researcher. Tiered instruction and interventions require a range of professional expertise and require a greater need for collaboration among disciplines and educators who work with this type of instructional design (Basham, Israel, Graden, Poth, & Winston, 2010).
Nature of the Study This study is framed by the social constructivist worldview approach, which according to Lincoln and Guba (1985) means that the process of inquiry is influenced by 16
the researcher, and that individuals socially construct that reality, which leads to multiple meanings. This worldview approach is described by the influence each person has on the experiences of the group bringing about multiple realities based on the complex perceptions of the participants. Becoming involved in the reality of the participants and interacting with the group so that the issue is understood through the participants’ eyes is necessary when collecting relevant data. Creswell (2009) suggests that as much as possible, the social constructivist approach relies on data collection that is focused on the experiences and views of those participating, collects participant meanings, and studies the context or setting of the participants. These data will then be interpreted and sectioned into broad themes related to the collaboration and communication efforts of the educators who work with at-risk students in the RtI model. The theoretical framework of generic qualitative research shapes the qualitative methodology of this study. Within the context of the group interactions, individuals will identify experiences and examine his or her responses to make meaning of past events. This approach allows for probing of participants in a safe environment without predetermining their responses (Greenfield et al., 2011). Participants will examine the efforts of collaboration and communication within the RtI team and consider methods and systems that were effective in affecting student achievement. Through the collection of these data the researcher will develop themes and patterns from the experiences and interpretation of the discussion. Definition of Terms The following terms are included to add understanding to this study. Each term is operationally defined as it relates to this study in order to increase clarity. 17
Collaboration The act of working together jointly with others to do a task or achieve shared goals. A commitment to a shared goal with time demands and priorities carried out through strategies and problem solving through clear communication in a setting that upholds respect and a common vision (Friend, 2000). Communication The act of exchanging or imparting information, ideas, or feelings. The function of language as complex meanings with a logical connection among (a) structure (self), (b) reference (world), and (c) action (society) with language functioning only as the tool used to this end (Ongstad, 2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) A law enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975 that guarantees a child with disabilities a free appropriate education based on the individual’s unique needs to be carried out in the least restrictive environment. The parents and child are ensured procedural rights under this law (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Intervention A program of instruction designed to provide remediation based on individual student need as identified through data collection and past performance. Programs are district-mandated and are uniformly available to all schools. Specifically, in Response to Intervention, 80% of students are responsive to core instruction with Tier II support with small groups, alternative presentation, and increased time on task (Wilcox, MurakamiRamalho, & Urick, 2013).
18
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) A federal law that requires all states to test students from Grades 3–8 each year and to disaggregate their scores by subgroups including race, disability, and other factors. The goal of this law is improve the achievement of English language learners, students with disabilities, and students who live in poverty. Each school district is charged to achieve a goal of 100% proficiency for every subgroup by the 2013-2014 school year (Ravitch, 2007; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). Pullout Services A Title-I funded activity to provide instruction, which supplements classroom instruction by following the curricular goals set by grade-level standards, but using alternate instructional materials to meet these goals. Critics state that students may fall further behind when removed from the general instruction, so the federal law has been changed to include school-wide programs funding (Gelzheiser, Meyers, & Pruzek, 1992; Ravitch, 2007). Response to Intervention A method of academic intervention, which integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and reduce behavior problems (Diamond & Duran, 2012). Role Description The actual behavior, or one’s perception of that behavior, of an individual performing a role within the organization (Owens & Valesky, 2007).
19
Role Perception The perception that one has of the role expectation that another person holds for him or her (Owens & Valesky, 2007). Role Expectation The expectation that one person has of the role behavior of another (Owens & Valesky, 2007). Paraprofessional An aide designed to assist the classroom teacher but does not have the same credentials or training as a professional teacher (Ravitch, 2007) Title I A federally funded program passed in 1965 designed to improve the academic achievement of low-income students. Parents are expected to be a part of how the Title I funds will be utilized as well as evaluating Title I programs, which are intended to supplement, and not replace, state and district funds (Ravitch, 2007).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations The following assumptions were considered in this study. 1. Teachers and interventionists were participating freely and able to express feelings and accurate descriptions of how communication and collaboration occurs in their day-to-day work with children receiving interventions through RtI. 2. Each teacher, interventionist, and administrator participating in this study were charged with fully understanding the terms and vocabulary used in the data collection and each person interpreting these words with the same depth-of-knowledge.
20
3. Administrators were candid and willing to express his or her understanding of how the organization’s infrastructure is devised to respond to the need for teachers and interventionists to communicate and collaborate. 4. Each educator, at every level, understands the value in collaborating and reflecting on individual student’s instructional program designed to promote improved instruction to ensure student success and achievement. The following limitations were considered in this study. 1. This study is limited by teachers and interventionists’ honesty of his or her responses and reliability of memories each carried to the study. The information is based on the opinions of each participant and not concrete data. 2. This study is limited by the depth of information administrators provided during the interview, about routines and strategies teachers and interventionists used to stay abreast of each other’s work. The limitations include administrators providing answers to interview questions based on first-hand knowledge of such interactions among the teachers and interventionists. 3. This study is limited to the cross-section of teachers, interventionists, and administrators from diverse schools in a large South Carolina district. The following delimitations were considered in this study. 1. This study is delimited by a narrow variety of responses of teachers and interventionists inside the district and areas included in the study. The information included is based on the policies and procedures expected from the superintendent of a specific public school district. This delimitation is based on the restrictive resources of time and funds. 2. This study is delimited by the simultaneous collection of qualitative data with two focus groups, 12 classroom observations, and 16 individual interviews. A mixed methods study would add numerical data to show correlation among student achievement and teacher responses.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study This study contains five chapters beginning with Chapter 1, which consists of the introduction, the background and problem statement, and the reason for the study. 21
Chapter 1 continues with the rationale, research questions, and significance of the study. This information is followed by the definition of terms, assumptions and limitations of this study, and finally, the nature and organization of the study. Chapter 1 defined the goals of this study and the objective of the research. Chapter 2 focuses on the review of the literature, which frames the questions, research, and data that has been collected to date involving the subject of collaboration and communication among teachers who work with students in a response to intervention program. In Chapter 3, the methodology, procedures surrounding the research, and the collection and analysis of data are presented. Chapter 4 provides the results from the study after all data are analyzed. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a summary, which is intended to explain the research findings, conclusions based on these data, implications of this research, and recommendations for additional study. This study concluded 14 months after the approval of the research proposal.
22
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction to the Literature Review The review of literature surrounding this study was to examine the existing information concerning the level and types of communication and collaboration that exists among teachers who work with at-risk students through the response to intervention model as it influences students in public schools. In addition, the literature was reviewed for information concerning the complex human reactions when assuming a particular role within the school system (Beehr, 1981; Olsen & Near, 1994). As data is collected throughout the year, a student who shows signs of failing to make adequate individual student yearly progress is considered for a remediation program presented by the school’s on-staff interventionist. This additional support is provided outside the general education classroom and is led by an interventionist who has a teaching degree and has been trained in the remediation programs available to the student (Masci, 2008; Shanahan, 2008). In most cases, the interventionist is using a program that is researchedbased but may not be results oriented. In addition, the interventionist is not listed as the instructor when the state test data is collected; the homeroom teacher solely holds the responsibility for test scores even though he or she may not have provided the bulk of the instruction. This reality is possibly part of the distinction that creates a difference in the roles each play within the organization (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012).
23
Role theory was a focus when exploring the ongoing collaboration and communication among the employees holding a variety of positions within the organization. People learn from worldviews held in the society and can justify the inequality that exists within the culture (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006). Pratto (1999) writes that people learn that power and resources are available to those who are dominate; those who are subordinate are not expected to wield power or gain respect in such a society. The opinion of the types of power or respect both teachers and interventionists perceive and the role administrators play in balancing the amount of power each has within the organization will be studied. This study examined the ways teachers, interventionists, and administrators interact to support the academic success of at-risk learners and how this information was linked with the academic research currently available. The purpose of this literature review was to identify the available knowledge supporting the theoretical framework on which this study was based. This literature review explored the current information available concerning the influence of the organizational role and the level of interaction and collaboration this structure had on the ability to communication within and outside of the employees’ current status. In addition, this chapter will provide a brief overview of the research currently available and how the research was important to the themes and topics this research examined. This literature review has been divided into the following sections: role theory, transition, and consistent models including push-in and pullout, response to intervention, communication, and collaboration.
24
Theoretical Framework Communication and collaboration is a mainstay in educational professional learning communities and is expected to exist as educators engage in perfecting the craft of teaching and learning. The theoretical framework of role theory provided the lens that was used to study the interactions among teachers involved in the study. Merriam (2009) explains the vocabulary and concepts that are present in the theory will determine how communication and collaboration among teachers who work together to instruct students going through response to intervention is viewed in this study. A push for collaborative teams or professional learning communities has been an ongoing expectation for teachers in today’s educational arenas. Teachers working together on common tasks with specific goals are a welcomed idea considering the depth and breadth of state standards and the deliberate delivery of instruction that includes project-based outcomes geared toward 21st Century skills. Gersten and Dimino (2006) write that when teachers can see the longterm benefits in a change in routine, that changing habits, although difficult, will be possible especially when approached in a way that would enhance teachers as professionals. Response to intervention is a system that allows teachers to be a part of a team of professionals designed to provide immediate support inside the classroom by using individualized teaching strategies focused on specific difficulties presented by the student. The focus of the theories present in this research was based on an effective networking culture, which results when teachers trust those with whom they work and share not only leadership, but also obligations through a reciprocal relationship (Singh, 2012). It is not appropriate to believe that a qualitative study has no need for the framework of theory. 25
No study would be complete without the structure theory provides to consider the information collected in new and different ways that transform the oftentimes ordinary and familiar data collected (Merriam, 2009). Creswell (2009) discusses theoretical perspective in qualitative research as a possible end point when undertaking the inductive process of building themes from data collected and progressing from broad themes to a generalized model or theory. In addition to the theoretical framework of organizational roles, themes will also be discussed through the review of the research literature and the data collected will be examined and explained based on the generalizations and findings reported in (a) differences among several models for providing intervention such as pushin and pullout (b) response to intervention strategies and services, (c) collaboration among colleagues, and finally (d) communication among teachers, interventionists, and principals.
Review of the Research Literature and Methodological Literature
Review of Research Regarding Communication among Educators Barth (2006) explains that more than anything else, the interactions of the adults in the school has the power to control the outcomes in terms of student accomplishment. In order to thoroughly examine the extent to which communication among teachers, interventionists, and principals impacts the support necessary to ensure students make adequate yearly progress, a review of the research focused on themes and generalizations.
26
In the course of a school day, all students are provided instruction at Tier I, which is delivered by a general educator in a heterogeneous classroom at each grade level. Through teacher provided formative and summative assessments, as well as nationally normed tests, which occur several times throughout the school year, teachers are constantly scanning the progress of each student in his classroom. At the first sign of a student beginning to struggle, the teacher begins to introduce remediation within the classroom as she pulls small groups for more intense instruction while the other children continue to practice skills or work collaboratively on a group project (Johnson, 2010). If the additional instruction is not producing the necessary growth, the response to intervention team is convened. At every step, the parent is kept abreast of the needs and struggles of the child and is included in the team decisions through invitations to meetings and parent conferences. When data reveals the student would benefit from Tier II intervention, the team will determine the type of scripted program to be delivered by a school interventionist and the student is moved to the pullout class or provided with an interventionist who will deliver the more intense instruction within the classroom through a push-in model (Johnson, 2010; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). If, for some reason, this strategy does not produce the desired results, the team reconvenes and brings the expertise of the school psychologist to the table to determine the need for additional testing to consider an even more intense program and possibly a more restrictive placement, such as a special education classroom. At each decision-making point, the team uses the combined data from multiple assessments, as well as input from teachers, administrators, and parents to make changes to the instructional models in an effort to 27
find the key to the student’s academic and social success while in school. (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010) Although response to intervention has become a more widely used model (Moors, Weisenburgh-Snyder, & Robbins, 2010; Palenchar & Boyer, 2008; Reeves, Bishop, & Filce, 2010), successes among schools vary widely. Schools continue to revise and develop processes designed to enhance the effectiveness of RtI to meet the needs of struggling students at all levels. Challenges faced by a push-in or pullout model of intervention and intensive remediation are another factor in this study. Moors, Weisenburgh-Snyder, and Robbins (2010) research describes a student who qualified for special education services but instead made extensive gains without the services provided through the IEP when given remediation within the general classroom. Role theory was included in the review of literature as it impacts the ability for all educators who work with struggling students to discuss the progress, strategies, and intervention being provided with one another. Successful implementation of response to intervention is widely based on the importance the educators place on a culture of collaboration, mutual respect, open communication, and trust among those individuals who work within this model (Holms, 2013; Johnston, 2010). This chapter will summarize and describe each theme through a review of existing relevant literature on organizational role theory, response to intervention, communication, collaboration, and instructional models consistent with RtI as push-in and pullout methods of providing intervention to struggling students.
28
Role Theory Olsen and Near (1994) explain role theory as a way to predict and analyze human behavior within the confines of specific relationships and situations. Understanding the relationship between a teacher and interventionist is an important aspect of this research. Peer to peer relationships within an organization are held longer and are more intimate than relationships that occur between subordinate and supervisors (Spillan, Mino, & Rowles, 2002). The nature of the research question lends itself to understanding the position and complex roles each participant holds and the types of communication that surrounds the discussions of the educational needs of at-risk students. Barth (2006) explains that more than anything else, the interactions of the adults in the school has the power to control the outcomes in terms of student accomplishment. The effectiveness of teacher and interventionist communication is in part controlled by the role the adult holds within the organization. As students move from one teacher to another, the need for the adults to effectively collaborate and communicate increases. The role of the administration cannot be diminished. For an organization to function effectively and efficiently, the coordination of an array of roles within the organization must be effectively communicated, fully understood, and accepted by each employee (Beehr, 1981; Helterbran, 2010). The administrator must share the organization’s resources available for struggling students, provide training at all levels of the organization in response to intervention (RtI), and monitor the work being carried out to ensure it is done so effectively using student test data. With the introduction of response to intervention as the decision-making avenue to ensure students are able to meet and exceed academic goals, the identified student is no 29
longer the responsibility of just one teacher. Those children who are struggling are given remediation through a variety of interventions, including time spent with a teacher, trained specifically on research-based remediation programs, outside of the general education classroom. According to role theory, employee performance is a function of both the organization and the individuals (Beehr, 1981). The two educators have a greater responsibility to work together to ensure the student is progressing in each setting and the learning is transferred and being applied in all situations (DuFour, 2011; Loera et al., 2013). However, the two educators who are charged with the task of communicating and collaborating have vastly different roles within the school. The need for ongoing staff development to facilitate the move toward professional learning teams, collaboration, communication, and shared responsibility for student outcomes is necessary if teachers are to be effective and efficient with the time that they work together (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). The classroom teacher is responsible for a heterogeneous group of homeroom students, including parent involvement, grade reports six times per year, state standards and testing in each of the four core subjects, and non-teaching responsibilities such as lunch and recess. In this particular school district, where the data was collected, the interventionist holds homogeneous small groups throughout the day, but has little to no responsibilities for grades, is responsible for only two subjects, including reading and math, and has no homeroom duties such as morning routines for lunch count, attendance, or non-academic responsibilities. This research included the opportunities for interaction among teachers and interventionists in a specific organization where the distribution of responsibilities and roles of the teacher and interventionist vary. 30
The environment in the elementary school can cause a negative effect on peer relationships. In any work environment, employees at the same organizational level can experience mutual dependence, honesty, and self-disclosure; a bond that reaches outside of the work-roles can be formed when employees work closely with each other in a caring and trusting environment. This type of association may be negatively affected when the focus is task-oriented and the work is conducted in a highly stressful environment and employees do not focus on relationship building. According to Spillan, Mino and Rowles (2002) teachers who work in high-pressure environments create fewer positive peer relationships than those employees who work in environments that celebrates the efforts of all employees at every level and who are perceived as valued members of the organization. An organization involves a relationship of distinct functional groups of employees who have specific work-roles to execute (Beehr, 1981). Schools are considered a goaloriented social entity requiring each individual employee to adopt assigned work-roles so that the organization can function effectively (Olsen & Near, 1994). Within a school, two or more teachers perform these separate roles with a single goal in mind and working collaboratively is expected for the sake of the child (Sun, Penuel, Frank, Gallagher, & Youngs, 2013). While student scores are reported under the homeroom teacher’s name, each teacher who works with a struggling student must assume responsibility for the student’s progress. Wickham and Parker (2007) suggest that where colleagues have similar skills and experience, consistent interaction minimizes issues surrounding role performance due to the sharing of similar role-taking behavior. The behaviors of both teacher and interventionist are similar in the teacher-student delivery model, which has 31
not changed for centuries. What has changed is the focus on achievement test scores and the perceived correlation to effective teaching practices. Within each organization there is a distinct hierarchy and those in administration are charged with ensuring those at a lower level are clear about the vision and goals of the organization, as well as the expectations of each employee. While teachers expect to be given this type of direction, it is unclear for both the teachers and interventionist, who has the final say about schedule changes, conflicting school events, and competing assessment windows, to name a few. Spillan, Mino, and Rowles (2002) write that gaps in communication exist at each level of the organization. While administration might focus on test scores and meeting annual yearly progress during staff meetings throughout the year, many times there is little mention after the start of the year staff development about the shared organizational vision or the value of communication and problem-solving to meet individual student needs. Because of the lack of attention to the latter, the teachers and interventionists are left to struggle through the questions that arise when two educators are working with the same student. Although all teachers are expected to move students toward or over the predetermined state standardized goal, the responsibility for ensuring student achievement and defending teaching decisions and remediation is most readily associated with the homeroom teacher; it is with this teacher that data-conferences with the principal of each school is held. While the two different groups of teachers are charged with improving student achievement, there are still quite a few obstacles that need to be overcome in order for the work to be most effective. Allowing the time and training necessary for the two teachers to be a true team with a common goal in mind is the work of the administration within 32
each building. Building capacity for teachers to be able to work collaboratively is best practice in a time where school effectiveness depends on how students’ needs are treated individually and solutions are developed through the problem solving efforts of a collaborative educational team. Response to Intervention Early intervention, given at the time students begin to fall behind, needs to be available to all teachers and not withheld until problems become chronic and profound (Wright, 2007). With response to intervention (RtI), a team is convened and interventions are provided with on-going data collection at the earliest point of evidence a student may be falling behind his or her peers. The intervention resources are arranged in three levels, or tiers (Mitchell, Stormont, & Gage, 2011; Powers & Mandal, 2011; Ramaswami, 2010; Reeves, Bishop, & Filce, 2010) with the instruction at the first tier available to all students, the second tier provides interventions tailored to the needs of struggling learners, and finally a third tier with intervention at the most intensive academic support available. The intensity of the intervention is increased as the student moves from Tier I to Tier III and the collection and study of current data indicates the need to move from one tier to another. The groups are flexible and students can move among the levels as the needs demand based on this relevant data of each student. Through the IDEA of 2004, the law encouraged states to adopt a new model of identifying students who are struggling and abandon the IQ-Achievement Discrepancy model (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008; Wright, 2007). Teachers are required to initiate an RtI model when they find students are not keeping pace with the requirements of the state minimum standards. According to the model, finding the problems early and 33
remediating and returning the student back to the general population is the goal. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2012) think about the tiers as levels and the amount of expertise and experience teachers have at using the resources and intervention at each level. The need to be competent in basic math and reading skills is compounded by the need to use these skills at high levels due to the move toward the use of Common Core State Standards, or at the very least the need to use these skills to meet the goal of 21st century workplace readiness of working collaboratively to solve problems and reach solutions. While the general education teacher can identify the students who are not able to keep up the pace when faced with collaborative tasks and assignments, the struggle is to find solutions through remediation and possible Tier II or Tier III interventions that can be transferred back into the classroom to function at productive levels with other learners at the student’s grade level. Ritchey, Silverman, Montanaro, Speece, and Schatschneider (2012) note, that far too many upper elementary children are still reading below grade level. While most gains are made when children are in the primary grades by focusing on word levels and fluency skills, there is little information on the best form of instruction for children in the upper elementary grades. According to Ritchey et al. (2012), the use of remediation in vocabulary and comprehension instruction has not been the focus of Tier II intervention, which might be more beneficial to upper elementary students who are no longer dealing with learning to read but reading to learn. Without a firm foundation in vocabulary and comprehension students who are returned to the general classroom from intervention work are not likely to be able to keep up with the children who are working at higher levels and the task of collaborating with general peers can continue to be a challenge. 34
As the specialist in the program designed to remediate the struggles of the students placed in intervention works with the children, the time and opportunity for the interventionist to discuss the data, progress, or lack of achievement within the program with the homeroom teacher is essential. Understanding how teachers and interventionists communicate and collaborate will be helpful in strengthening the instruction the student receives from each teacher. The role of a special education teacher in the RtI model is still a controversial issue (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). Interventionists are often skilled in reading interventions, however, the teacher does not normally hold a special education degree. In the district where the study was conducted, the teachers are typically returning retired or first-year teachers who are hired on a year-to-year basis with full benefits. Interventionists are expected to prepare and deliver lessons, foster communication with the parents, and remain flexible when changes in the schedule occur. The interventionists are provided with a one-day introduction to the research-based product and are observed by a company representative and district office specialist several times per year. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Stecker (2010) write about blurring the lines between general and special education. Many of the programs designed to provide a year and a half growth, if not more, are scripted programs that are typically delivered by special education teachers in Tier III levels. The school district involved in this study have finetuned the programs over the last five years to bring into line the products that are delivered at each level. The companies used for the general student population produce intervention products that are used with students needing more intense instruction. The programs have some similarities in verbiage and layout of the design of a typical lesson 35
to bring continuity to the multiple groups in each grade level and can be less confusing as students move in and out of classrooms. Having input from special education teachers could be a valuable resource for the interventionist and teacher alike. It is unclear how the collaboration and communication of the interventionist, general education teacher, and special education teacher come about during the school day or beyond and is a goal of this research. Communication Communication is essential to providing expert assistance to children who struggle in the acquisition of grade-level standards. Instruction needs to be coordinated with the homeroom teacher and interventionist (Shanahan, 2008). Although teachers are often provided with opportunities to work in professional learning communities, the introduction of interventionists into the group is unclear and varied among the several elementary schools within the district studied. The expectation at the district level is that teachers and interventionists are given ongoing staff development within their own programs, however, there is no current process in place to share data points or student achievement with both groups. When test scores are tracked and teachers work together to develop lessons to teach the grade-level standards, interventionists would benefit from being involved in the communication efforts. How and when the communication is connecting the two, or more, teachers is varied. In order for the interventionist to understand how to provide remediation to the student, communication between the homeroom teacher and interventionist must exist and be used to determine the level of the work and the intensity of instruction provided to struggling students (Fisher & Frey, 2008; Shanahan, 2008). 36
While experts agree that communication is vital, the need for accurate and timely communication is required. Teachers at all grade levels are charged with ensuring their students are proficient with numerous complex state standards and time is a critical factor. Administrators place a great deal of emphasis on teacher’s ability to maximize student time-on-task and providing instructional learning that is student-centered and engaging. Little emphasis, however, is directed to ensuring teachers are spending time outside the classroom communicating with one another about individual student needs or effective learning strategies for particular students that are making an impact in the student’s ability to be successful. Professional development and efforts to develop opportunities for teachers to communicate with specific goals in mind is a common occurrence in today’s schools. The benefits of common planning sessions have been clearly understood for some time. Shanahan (2008) explains that for response to intervention to be effective, the data must be the driving force in deciding on the type and level of instruction that will assist children in increasing understanding of concepts and skills necessary to access the gradelevel instruction. Loera et al. (2013) found communication among colleagues even outside of the specific school is possible with technology, effort, and desire. It is reasonable to expect it is feasible for teachers and interventionists to be able to use technology when considering ways to accomplish the task of sharing information concerning struggling students. The programs used in both the general classroom and the Tier II and Tier III remediation classes have web-based data collection opportunities and can be shared among several educators. With technology advances, the opportunities for 37
interventionists, teachers, administration, and even specialists housed at the district office to have access to the data is not difficult; the difficulty occurs in the time constraints of keeping up with the overwhelming amount of information available. It is unclear how the increased information is instrumental in fostering the level of communication necessary to ensure each child has the best educational opportunity. According to Loera et al. (2013), efforts to engage in dialogue between the two groups of teachers is included in a variety of ways, but the need for the discussion to be reflective is necessary. Reflective dialogue, as explained by Loera et al. (2013), is achieved when teachers and interventionists are concerned with problem solving through meaningful conversation. These communication efforts must be focused on instruction, student achievement and learning, and student motivation (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Frustration is likely for both teachers and students when time is not available to participate in and practice the effective strategies that are working in some parts of the school day but are not able to be replicated in others. Teachers, for years, have been part of a profession that allowed them to isolate themselves behind closed doors and manage their classrooms as segregated islands of student learning. It is difficult to change perceptions of some teachers and convince them that communicating with colleagues is the most effective way to share valuable information about what is working for students, as well as how to improve aspects of his or her instruction that are not effective. Resistance has been ongoing and administration must take an active role in building trust among teachers by providing time and opportunities for teachers to communicate with one another. Celebrating successes and finding value in each teacher’s contribution to the academic success of his or her students 38
can be the bridge to increased open communication among teaching professionals. Hughes (2012), in a study of teacher satisfaction and attrition explains that ensuring students are invested in the lessons and interested in learning provides the optimum learning environment for students. Taking time to communicate with each other, teachers and interventionists would be more likely to produce a cohesive learning event for students in both the homeroom teacher and interventionists’ classrooms. Loera et al. (2013) describes communication between the teachers must include common language and shared understanding in order to be effective. When all involved with the student use consistent language and verbiage, the teachers can use the limited time together most effectively. There are opportunities in each school for teachers to gather with the instructional coach at least once per week in a room designed to support learning for all students. Data walls are kept up to date with current information for each student gleaned from achievement testing sessions using the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) tests and fluency tests, each given at least three times per year. In these cases, teachers have the information and the time set aside to discuss the progress of their students, however, the interventionists are not part of these weekly meetings. It is not clear if the interventionists are aware or are given the opportunity to meet with the instructional coach and discuss the results of tests that are designed to be delivered in the general classroom and not with the interventionists. In addition to the common language, shared norms and shared goals are essential in sustaining the focus of interactions and communication events. Ensuring the professional communities within the school are functioning effectively and working toward shared goals falls on the administration in the school (Spanneut, 2010). The 39
merging of a productive staff is more likely when the group shares values, a common understanding of the work necessary to provide engaging lessons, which will ultimately produce, increased student learning. Effective learning communities can develop a plan for students, even those that move from one teacher to another throughout the day, that will provide the support necessary for delivering effective remediation through engaging instruction. Collaboration As teachers work together, collaboration allows for the focus to be specifically targeted to a particular outcome. Communication can exist without collaboration; however collaboration cannot exist without communication. A great deal of study has been undertaken to find the optimum environment in which collaboration will thrive. Learning communities or collaborative teams are carried out as functioning groups of teachers relinquish planning time to gather together and develop ongoing lessons and plans to ensure students are progressing toward individual goals. There has been extensive work in providing the educator with opportunities to enhance the structure and effectiveness of the learning teams efforts. Administrators are instrumental in ensuring the teams continue to function cooperatively and are using current data to make decisions. At this time, administrators throughout the district conduct planning and vision meetings before each new school year begins. Because the interventionists are hired as a full-time teacher with benefits and requirements of general and special education teachers, they are involved in the community building and shared vision meetings each year. It is unclear how interventionists perceive the information or how invested each is 40
in the group’s efforts for ongoing collaboration throughout the school year. Although they are involved the preliminary work at the beginning of the year, little effort is expended by most administration to involve the interventionists in collaborative gradelevel planning each week once school begins. Loera et al. (2013) conducted a study and found that collaboration improves instruction, brings about new and enhanced techniques, and supports the goals and values of the school. Opportunities for students are improved with this type of supportive collaboration among the staff bringing about increased academic growth. One outcome that seems to be prevalent is the increase in student engagement and work within the classroom to prepare children for 21st Century skill requirements. Best practice in the learning environment can be a focus when educators are involved in collaborative planning and lesson development. The ability of teachers to work together and concentrate resources to a specific goal is more likely when several teachers bring expertise in a variety of avenues when they come to the table collaboratively. In order for the collaborative work to be successful, teachers must have a great deal of trust and believe that their opinions and suggestions are valued. When the organization is committed to shared values, keeping the focus on student achievement is more easily achieved. Being comfortable and secure in their value to the group is necessary and the administrator must be instrumental in bringing about this trust and ability to collaborate. In addition to shared norms and values, Loera et al. (2013) list four additional features of a well-functioning collaborative group. The key features include openness to sharing knowledge, observing and reflecting on mentor lessons, problem solving as part of the dialogue, and a desire to impact student learning. The five factors 41
are necessary for the professional learning community to make effective changes to curriculum and instruction which in turn will support student learning and are more likely to be found in a professional learning community that is supported by the administration. Effective collaboration, as with effective communication, must be valued highly enough to make time for the events and opportunities to be available to both teachers and interventionists. As student move through the system, the strides each makes need to be discussed and built upon to keep the focus on the student returning to the general classroom. By ensuring both time and data are available to both the teacher and interventionists who work with the same student and opportunities for each to share successes and struggles progress can be made and strategies that work can be replicated. It is with the supportive efforts that the transformational leader will begin to affect the climate and culture of the school (Calabrese, 2002) to promote the positive and functioning models of communication, collaboration, and support for the at-risk student as he moves through various classes during the instructional day. A school culture is not static, but constantly changing and evolving (Gorton & Alston, 2009). Through this standard pattern of change, the administrator must be true to the vision of the organization and facilitate the understanding necessary for buy-in from those she leads. Because of the different organizational roles assigned to the teacher and interventionist, the administration must make a concerted effort to bring the two together with a plan to do what is right for students. By identifying the areas that are working well in support of the at-risk student who is receiving intervention with another teacher within the school day, the administration can replicate the collaborative foundation in other areas within the school 42
or within teams as necessary. A transformational leader will provide the education, time, and grieving period necessary for a sustained change in practice. Calabrese (2002) reminds us that knowledge is power and promoting knowledge and understanding will enable the organization to change with the least amount of anxiety. While abandoning traditional ways of interacting with children and adults through a closed-door approach might be stressful and uncomfortable for those involved, the children who will benefit from the open communication and better accomplish transferring strategies and cues from one class to another is great. Instructional leaders will be able to replicate best practice in effective collaborative interactions among the team and adopt high expectations for all who work with students identified as at-risk and involved in the response to intervention process to support catch-up growth and academic achievement among this population. Push-In VS Pullout Services When students are struggling with academic progress in the general classroom, the current process for remediation through RtI in the school district in which data was collected is through the pullout model, although both pullout and push-in models can be quite effective. Economically it is more difficult to fund enough qualified teachers to spread out throughout the classrooms than it is to have student move from the homeroom and meet together in a classroom where the highly qualified, certified teacher is waiting to deliver instruction. Although high-quality instruction within the general classroom is the first of the three tiers, there are times when the instruction still does not provide the struggling student with enough support to access the general curriculum (Shanahan, 2008). At this time, intervention is added at tier two to determine if the more intensive instruction will 43
correct misunderstandings and provide the structure for the student to catch up to his or her peers. As a part of Tier II, students are taken from the general homeroom and provided remediation through an intervention program by a second teacher. Gelzheiser, Meyers, and Pruzek (1992) conducted a study of both push-in and pullout service methods, which revealed the usefulness and positive influence of teacher input with collaboration. The opportunity for collaboration and communication through the push-in model is increased, however, this was not a guarantee that the model increased student achievement (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Shanahan, 2008; Gelzheiser, Meyers, & Pruzek, 1992). In order to achieve the positive outcomes gained in the push-in model, administrators would need to be instrumental in assuring time is available through scheduling or setting aside time during regular staff meetings to facilitate increased collaboration and communication among the interventionist and general classroom teacher. Rae, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas (2002) write that when children leave the general classroom, there has been evidence that students do not show academic improvement, which can be a result of lowered expectations, uninspired curriculum, and stigmatizing segregation. These issues can be the catalyst for student failure and bring about the exact opposite results than were intended. The article goes on to report an evergrowing population of students who are not working at grade level and are in need of some type of remediation, however the paper did not specify a model that was superior to another. Problem solving and the work of administrators to facilitate the types of services necessary for struggling student to be successful was the key (Rae, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). 44
According to Shanahan (2008) some of the benefits of moving out of the general classroom and into a different setting include a smaller group setting which would allow the student to participate more fully and more frequently, a reduction of distractions, and closer proximity to the instructor. However, time on task and student engagement in noninstructional activities is a concern with the pullout model. Students must physically move outside the classroom, collect with students experiencing the same difficulties, and prepare for instruction in a separate classroom. Positive influences of the push-in model, also include coaching from teacher-to-teacher as the reading specialist works with the classroom teacher to improve lessons and causing a deeper understanding of content (Shanahan, 2008; Sparks, 2013). One of the main benefits to students staying with the homeroom class is that they are not in danger of missing out on key information that is being delivered throughout the day (Klinger et al., 1998). The students are able to make and maintain friendships when remediation inside the homeroom classroom is available through the push-in model (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). The benefits listed can be countered with the cons of removing students from the general classroom. Negative or less desirable consequences of removing the student include a lack of first-hand knowledge about were the breakdown in understanding is occurring, as Shanahan (2008) describes, which might be noticed when another teacher pushes in for instruction with the general teacher. Another drawback, Klinger et al. (1998) writes, the effects of losing even a few minutes add up to significant instructional losses for the semester and year. Student who have to move from class to class understandably have to wait for student who may not be on time or those who might be absent before the interventionist is aware he or she is not coming to the class. Getting the 45
students prepared for the day’s lesson rests with the teacher being able to grab the attention of the class and present the agenda and expected outcome (Masci, 2008). In addition to quality instruction and guarding against loss of instructional time is the possibility of stigmatizing children who are removed from the classroom for remediation (Klinger et al., 1998; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). The social acceptance factor can be more important to a student than achievement and removing the student from his or her learning group can prove more devastating at the late elementary age (Masci, 2008). However, devastation can also come from remaining in the classroom and reading or working with material that is grossly different from that of the age appropriate resources used by his or her peers in the room. The debate on the most effective model continues to be discussed and researched. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) maintain, through their study of both approaches in a high school setting, that it is important for several different models be available for children so that the individual need of each student is taken into consideration before determining which delivery model is the best fit. At this time a one-size-fits-all approach is still considered the least effective and reasonable pros and cons can be documented for each model. As the need to ensure all students are successful and able to function in the 21st Century with advanced skills in reading and math, a variety of instructional models and methods must be considered. One practical outcome of students and teachers being held at higher standards that came out of the research is the need for teachers and interventionists to communicate and collaborate no matter the delivery model. (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002)
46
Review of Methodological Issues Merriam (2009) explains that a basic qualitative research study is designed to understand how people make sense of or interpret their experiences, and the meanings they apply to these experiences. These data collection were gathered using a generic qualitative research methodology to study the effectiveness of communication among teachers and team members who work with at-risk students. Because the environment in which teachers work is a social construct, the experiences of the participants was based on the situational context of the setting, culture, and role the individual holds within the social group. In addition, communication and collaboration occurs within a group or partnership, as opposed to an individual task. Focus groups were conducted to examine the effects that the individual’s role has on the level and effectiveness of the communication patterns followed. Merriam (2002) explains the generic, or basic, qualitative research design is effective in determining how meaning is constructed, how people make sense of their lives and worlds, in the context of a particular culture. Understanding the unique perspective of the teachers, interventionists, and administrators framed the research and data collection of the proposed study. A focus on learning the participant’s meaning must be the focus in the generic qualitative research (Creswell, 2009); the participant’s effectiveness and ability to collaborate and communicate with other team members was studied. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the types of communication and collaboration that occurred among teachers and interventionists when each works with a struggling learner, focus groups, interviews, and classroom visits were conducted. In addition, administrators were interviewed to determine each individual’s role in 47
facilitating community within the building among educators and the degree to which each is providing opportunities, if any, for communication and collaboration among the teacher and interventionists. Information was gathered about how the struggling students were being served within the building. During the focus group discussions, the openended questions focused primarily on the phenomenon of communication among the instructors with particular consideration given to the types of data shared, the plans for next steps in a student’s educational program or plan, and the level of detail shared in these areas. In addition, information was gathered to document the type and level of disagreement or clarification sought, if any. Data was collected, with the participants’ consent, through audio and videotaped focus group sessions. In addition, individual interviews were performed and antidotal notes from response to intervention meetings were obtained. The nature of the research question lends itself to understanding the position and complex roles each participant holds and the types of communication that surrounds the discussions of the educational needs of at-risk students. Barth (2006) explains that more than anything else, the interactions of the adults in the school has the power to control the outcomes in terms of student accomplishment. Research is needed to determine the most effective means of ensuring positive results when students transfer instructional strategies outside of one-toone tutoring settings (Houge, Geier, & Peyton, 2008). It is these types of interactions that the researcher sought to understand when these data were collected through basic qualitative research methods. This study helped the researcher to answer the question of the extent to which communication and collaboration among the members of the RtI team is effective in 48
supporting the academic success of the at-risk learner. In addition, what organizational roles within the school, and the perceived importance of the role, affected the effort of communication and collaboration among the team? When these questions are answered, the practical implications of understanding the barriers or successful instances of effective collaboration and communication will be corrected or duplicated. This study will be of interest to all educators who wish to be effective in efforts to support at-risk learners who work with multiple educators. By continuing to establish patterns that bring the school into a truly collaborative team designed to help all students achieve at the highest levels, service to students and families will be realized. The generic qualitative study (Merriam, 2009) will yield a description of the perspectives of the teachers, interventionists, and administrators who work with at-risk children through the response to intervention model. Current practices of sharing information and communication efforts to serve these students was examined using data obtained from interviews, focus group discussions, response to intervention team meetings, and written reports. The role of the administrator in the district studied was also a focus of the research, which will serve to help the reader gain a deeper perspective on the vision of the district and local school. Administrators are instrumental in producing a climate and value system that is conducive to collaboration and communication among the teachers, faculty, and staff. The importance the leader of the organization places on behaviors that facilitate cooperative work and learning is indicative of the employees’ feeling of safety and willingness to take risks and share vital information with colleagues. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) describe the
49
narrative qualitative researchers’ attempt to understand the individual’s social, political, and historical context and derive meaning from their experiences. The generic qualitative researcher must identify both individual meaning and common elements among the social group, understand the context in which the information is told, and identify the specific meaning of the individual participants, as well as major themes. As these data were analyzed, the communication techniques that produce stability among the environments of multiple teachers serving the same student through a response to intervention model was evaluated for effectiveness and best practice, which can be replicated to ensure successful academic progress of at-risk students. By exploring the components of successful communication efforts, a consistent environment can be expected to enhance the ability of the team to keep parents, teachers, and administrators abreast of successes and challenges that become evident through the course of intervention. Merriam (2002) notes that basic interpretive qualitative research will be used to determine how participants make meaning of a situation in which people interpret their experiences from their own perspective as they engage in the specific task. The research provided insight into how response to intervention teams interpret their role in the process and facilitate effective patterns that ensure the struggling student gain the most benefit from the collaboration of multiple teachers to inform instruction and accelerate student achievement. The research was also instrumental in determining the types of communication and collaboration that have proved effective, as well as a model that has proven more effective in a particular setting, so that these types of strategies may be replicated in other settings.
50
Synthesis of Research Findings While a great deal of information can be found on professional learning communities and the benefits to both teachers and students, there is little information about how teachers communicate and collaborate with the interventionists that work with the students who are involved in response to intervention. In the same way, there is extensive data supporting the involvement of administration to foster the common goals and core values of the organization so that teachers and interventionists can have the buyin necessary to ensure strong commitment to the objectives the administration has communicated to all staff. In addition, the research shows a valuable correlation between the professional learning communities and student achievement (Barth, 2006; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2004). With increased collaboration and communication among all teachers, the ability to present engaging and creative lessons that draw on 21st Century skills is enhanced and students are more likely to incorporate collaboration with one another to solve more complex problems and increase the ability to communicate with effective productivity. Teachers are able to support one another during the introduction of new skills and strategies students need to be successful in today’s job market. Today’s global market is increasing the demand for graduates to have problem solving skills, work collaboratively, and use technology with ever-increasing productivity and speed. No longer are reading, writing, and arithmetic the only focus in education; children must begin to learn these high-level skills in the early grades so that the foundation needed to be successful in high school and college will be strong. The need to communicate and collaborate to produce more complex lessons to meet these goals has been studied
51
extensively and the results are available to draw upon for more in depth studies (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2004). As the need increases for general education students to be able to collaborate and communicate with one another to produce answers to complex tasks that require a synthesis of information and multiple-step directions, calculations and computations, and real-world problem-solving steps, those students who struggle in one or more subject areas are at a great deficit (South Carolina Department of Education, 2010). As teachers consider the complexity of Common Core State Standards and teaching and assessing through 21st Century skills, finding a balance for all students who are learning and progressing at different rates of speed and competency is essential. Before students are identified as candidates for special education, the entrance and progression through response to intervention is a reality in many school districts (Marcell & Ferraro, 2013). Without collaboration and communication among the teachers and interventionists being a priority for administration and part of the core value of ensuring every student making adequate yearly progress, the ability for all students to access the curriculum will be diminished. At this time, research is lacking information about the way and frequency teachers and interventionists communicate and collaborate to ensure all students will be successful. While plenty of research exists that highlights professional development and the need for collaborative teams working together to produce curriculum and instructional strategies, very little research is found that specifically includes the needs of teachers and interventionists who work with struggling students when the student is served by more than one teacher either in a pullout or push-in instructional delivery 52
model. In addition, there are few research studies that consider the role of the administration in ensuring the time and daily structure to the schedule to enable the communication and collaboration necessary to bridge the learning between the remediation and the general classroom teacher. Critique of Previous Research The previous research on professional learning communities has a great focus on collaboration among teachers and is mainly reported through qualitative research methods (Maloney & Konza, 2011). There are a great deal of, however still fewer, quantitative research or mixed method studies conducted and published in the area of collaboration and communication among teachers; the frequency and types of communication efforts in qualitative studies are tallied and studied. For example, the studies conducted by Wells and Feun (2013) are focused on the success of different choices administrators make in a variety of school districts, and the qualitative studies give accurate data in reporting the instances of teachers involved in professional learning communities and the correlation between the interactions and student achievement. In addition, the studies report findings on the measure of student success with engaging lessons and improved outcomes when working through 21st Century skills. While this research is critical and provides useful data and information, the role of collaboration and communication is not considered. Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas (2002) summarize a study conducted to understand the outcome of different delivery models for students with disabilities. Although this study focused on special education, the differences between the inclusion, or push-in model, and the pullout model were very similar. The researchers write that no 53
matter the type of materials or model of delivery, the most important discovery was the need for all teachers who work with the students to collaborate and communicate. In addition, the need for the administrator to schedule time for the teachers’ interactions and staff development to train teachers in the art of effective communication and collaboration was most effective in producing positive change in the student’s academic achievement (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). The research that exists in the area of communication and collaboration among teachers and interventionists, although not a great deal, is mainly studies through the use of qualitative data collection methods. The act of communicating and collaborating with other educators is a social construct that is best studied through methods that allow participants the ability to consider his or her motives, biases, and beliefs about the need for collaboration and communication through experiences each has had, both individually as well as, within a group setting.
Chapter 2 Summary Response to intervention (RtI) is becoming a more widely-used method for identifying students at risk of falling behind in an effort to ensure students who are labeled as disabled and provided with an individualized educational program have been given every opportunity to catch up with peers in the general class through specific intervention through the tiered model of RtI. At the first signs of problems, resources must be used quickly and effectively so that the issue will not become chronic and profound (Wright, 2007). Factors which effect the effective implementation of RtI include the level of communication and collaboration the teachers engage in concerning 54
the individuals going through the remediation model (Loera et al., 2013), the role each plays within the organization and the resulting influence the role has on the level of interactions among the educators (Beehr, 1981), the involvement and influence the administrator has on the process (Calabrese, 2002), and the different models that can be found among various schools using the response to intervention model (Klinger et al., 1998; Masci, 2008; Shanahan, 2008). A great deal of research exists along with the pros and cons of the various models of providing intervention to struggling students through RtI. One important factor of teachers and interventionists who work collaboratively in the same room is the first-hand experience each has while working with the child who is involved in the response to intervention process and an increased possibility that any communication among the teachers will be based on a mutual experience as opposed to two possibly very different scenarios if the child is served in two different settings (Shanahan, 2008). Masci (2008) addresses the student’s self-image in his research, especially with children in the upper elementary grades, and concludes that the child who is pulled out of the classroom from his or her peers is more likely to feel singled out as different. However, as Klinger et al. (1998) writes, the benefits of children who are removed from the classroom include smaller group sizes, and a focus in instruction when working with children who are experiencing the same struggles, as important factors. No matter the model used to provide the intervention, the need for collaboration and communication remains the key to effective increase in student academic achievement (Loera et al., 2013). In order for communication and collaboration to be effective, the administration is instrumental in ensuring each teacher is valued and feels they are adding value as a part 55
of the organization (Calabrese, 2002). The ability of teachers and interventionists to comment and provide input in a safe environment where all members are valued is the goal of a transformational leader and is the catalyst for change to take place, for educators to plan and invent, and ensure the focus remains on student success and academic achievement (Calabrese, 2002; Loera et al., 2013). Within any organization, the hierarchical levels are distinct and can be a cause for lasting relationships or angst as the members work in environments that are either conducive to collaboration and support or in environments that are stressful and focus on results through high-pressure tactics (Spillan, Mino, & Rowles, 2002). When administrators are cognizant of the need to keep the shared organizational goals and focus a central theme of meetings and a safe work environment exists, teachers and interventionists are more likely to support each other with the work each must accomplish to ensure every student’s success.
56
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction to Chapter 3 The methodology used to examine how the role of teachers, interventionists, and administrators determine the effectiveness of communication and collaboration among educators who work with at-risk students through response to intervention will be discussed in this chapter. As a qualitative study, the level of collaboration and communication among these educators was studied and the effect each has on the at-risk learner’s ability to make adequate educational achievement was the focus. The social constructivist worldview approach to gather the complex views of the participants in order to construct meaning from their experiences in the workplace and within the group were used to frame the methodology as described in this chapter (Creswell, 2009). The purpose of this chapter is to examine the methodology used in this research to fully understand the lived experiences of each participant as these experiences relate to the level, duration, and effectiveness of the collaboration and communication each educator experiences within the response to intervention process. This chapter will discuss the purpose of the study, the central research question, the design of the study, the target population and sample size, setting and recruitment procedures, the instrument used and validity of the instrument, data collection, variables, and data analysis procedures. In addition, the validity and credibility of the study will be examined, expected findings,
57
plus a discussion of the ethical issues, will be found in this chapter. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a summary. Purpose of the Proposed Study The purpose of this study was to examine how the role of teachers, interventionists, and administrators determines the effectiveness of communication and collaboration among the team who work with at-risk students through response to intervention (RtI). In addition, throughout this qualitative study, the researcher sought to understand the variances, if any, created by the organizational role each holds within the school, the level of interaction and communication among the educators, and the effect each has on the at-risk learner’s ability to make adequate academic yearly progress with the goal of returning the student to the general education classroom. Research Questions Barth (2006) explains that the interactions of the adults in the school, more than anything else, have the power to control the outcomes as related to student accomplishments. Understanding the interactions among educators in these situations to determine the experiences of teacher and interventionists to affect positive outcomes for student achievement was a goal of this research. To this end, the following research questions were designed to collect data concerning these interactions. Central Research Question In what ways do teachers, interventionists, and administrators interact and communicate to support the academic success of at-risk learners?
58
Sub-questions Sub-question 1.
In what ways do RtI team members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress?
Sub-question 2.
In what ways do RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress?
Sub-question 3.
In what ways do RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another?
Sub-question 4.
In what ways do the RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team?
Research Design This study utilized a generic qualitative research inquiry design to collect, analyze, and report data, which according to Merriam (2002) is an approach that results in a descriptive view of lived experiences of the participants, using an inductive strategy to determine how participants make meaning of the these experiences. The goal of this research design was to understand the lived experiences of different groups of educators, namely teachers, interventionists, and administrators as each participated in the response to intervention process to provide support to struggling students. Specifically, the information gathered through collecting the experiences of these educators as each participated in the response to intervention model based on the organizational role held within the school, was designed to determine the opportunities for collaboration and
59
communication among teachers and interventionists and understand the level and function of each team member within the RtI group. The study focus was on identifying the various methods of collaboration and communication among the response to intervention team to ensure the students were making adequate educational gains, what efforts were made to bridge the gap between the intervention classroom and the general education classroom, and to what extent the role the educator held within the organization had in promoting or suppressing the amount and level of communication and collaboration among the team members. The generic qualitative research design is the most appropriate model for this type of research because the experience each participant offers can be explored in greater depth to ensure an accurate account of the educators’ lived experiences and what meaning the participant attributes to the experience (Merriam, 2009). Although there are many sources and expert research and writers (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2010) who attempt to explore the characteristics of generic qualitative inquiry, most agree on the list presented in Creswell’s (2009) work and it is with these characteristics in mind that this generic qualitative study was conducted: •
Natural setting – researchers collect data at the site where the participants work and encounter the problem under study.!
•
Researcher as key instrument – researchers collect data themselves through observing behavior and interviewing participants.!
•
Multiple sources of data – researchers collect and examine multiple sources of data such as interviews, observation, and documents in order to discover themes or categories that occur across all of the data sources.! 60
•
Inductive data analysis – researchers build themes and categories by working back and forth among data and themes until a comprehensive set of themes emerge. Researchers often involve participants to obtain input into the development of themes and categories.!
•
Participants’ meanings – researchers are careful to maintain focus on the meaning the participants hold and not on the researcher’s bias or preconceived understandings.!
•
Emergent design – researchers cannot hold fast to a predetermined design because the process may change at any point dependent on the information obtained while participants share insights concerning the problem or issue being studied.!
•
Theoretical lens – researchers use theoretical lens to organize the data collected, which may include identifying the social, political, or historical context of the problem being studied.!
•
Interpretive – researchers form interpretations of what they see, hear, and understand while collecting data in the field. Not only does the researcher have to interpret what the participants are experiencing, the reader of the study will again add his or her interpretation where multiple views of the problem can occur.!
•
Holistic account – researchers report multiple perspectives, identify many factors involved in the problem, and reports on the larger picture that emerges. ! Because the environment in which teachers work is a social construct, the
experiences of the participants was based on the situational context of the setting, culture, and role the individual holds within the social group. In addition, communication and collaboration occurs within a group or partnership, as opposed to being an individual 61
task. Merriam (2009) explains that a basic qualitative research study is designed to understand how people make sense of or interpret their experiences, and the meaning they apply to these experiences are recorded. As teachers and interventionists discussed current topics while participating in the focus group, the generic qualitative research method was most effective in determining how meaning was constructed and how people made sense of their lives and choices in the context of a particular culture. Creswell (2009) explains that qualitative researchers use multiple data sources and that data from these multiple sources are reviewed and organized into themes or categories rather than using only one data source. This study used several data sources to gain a broader understanding of how communication and collaboration were used to ensure the struggling student was making adequate yearly progress and that the strategies found effective in one environment, such as the interventionists’ classroom, were being carried over for greater success in the general classroom. Understanding the unique perspective of the teachers, interventionists, and administrators framed the research and data collection of the study and was guided by the qualitative research work of Merriam (2009) to explore the lived experiences of the participants through focus groups, individual interviews, and classroom observations using the research questions to determine the extent of collaboration and communication occurring at each level of the organization. Focus groups were selected as one method of data collection to better understand the experiences of the participants and allow for the respondents to comment on the ideas that were most important without the constraints of a survey tool or poll.
62
Krueger and Casey (2009) write that an open-ended approach to questioning using the focus group model allowed the participants to comment and share experiences and attitudes freely and to explain their position more fully. The use of focus groups in the data collection of this study offered the teachers and interventionists the opportunity to share their experiences with one another and explain the unique opportunity each educator had with efforts to communicate and collaborate with colleagues, and the effect, if any, their role within the organization played in these efforts by comparing and contrasting their experiences with fellow teachers or interventionists. One assumption is that the role the participant holds within the organization will have an effect on types of communication or collaboration efforts shared among teachers and interventionists. In addition, another assumption is that learners may or may not benefit from leaving the general classroom for intervention with another teacher outside the classroom. The responses of the participants were collected to understand (a) the ways RtI team members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress, (b) the ways in which RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress (c) the way RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another, and (d) the ways in which RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team.
63
Target Population, Sampling Method, and Related Procedures Target Population The target population for this study was all elementary education teachers who had at least two years of experience and have taught students involved in the RtI process, interventionists who held a South Carolina teaching certificate and had been employed by a certain large district to teach reading or math intervention for at least two years and had taught students involved in the RtI process, and all administrators with at least two years of experience as acting principal of an elementary school in which students who were struggling were part of the response to intervention process to identify the needs of and remediate the student in grades two through five. This study did not include parochial schools, charter schools, or private schools due to the inability to verify the use of RtI to assist struggling students. Because response to intervention is mandated by the superintendent as the means to identify struggling learners and provide tiered intervention before suggesting more restrictive placement in special education, all elementary schools which contain second through fifth grade teachers and interventionists were invited to be a part of the study. The only exclusion of schools was limited to the school in which the researcher worked as an assistant principal at the time of the study. The total number of students in this district was approximately 40,000 during the 2013-2014 school year with about one half of that number of children enrolled in the elementary schools within the district. The general classroom student to teacher ratio is approximately 23:1 with an ethnic distribution of 65% White, 20% African American,
64
9% Hispanic, and 6% other. The number of students receiving free or reduced cost for lunch is 63% of the total population. Sampling Method The sampling method used in this study was one of convenience as well as being purposeful. One factor for obtaining the sample for this research study was to ensure the process would be manageable by using a sample that was practical in terms of visiting classrooms, gathering participants for focus group discussions, and for holding private interviews. The district, as explained on the particular county schools’ website, is larger in area than the state of Rhode Island so the diversity necessary to ensure the setting is appropriate for a reliable outcome was ultimately achieved by using the one district as described above in the target population. This particular district has used the response to intervention method of identifying and serving students who are not maintaining adequate yearly academic growth for over four years at the time of this study. The response to intervention method was fully implemented during the 2009-2010 school year and replaced the student study team to include additional data and more accurately track student progress through multiple data points that were applied uniformly through each school within the large district. The sampling methods used in this study were purposively considered to ensure the participants would have similar lived experiences while working with colleagues through response to intervention with struggling students. It was not expected that participants would have the same ideas or feelings associated with the experiences of working with coworkers, but that each would have had an opportunity to be involved with other educators and administrators while assisting struggling students. Lodico, 65
Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) describes the purposeful random sample as designed to include individuals with similar experiences so that focus group participants have a familiarity of the language and specific practices for favorable interactions. The purposive standards used for selection to the sample included (a) full-time teachers who worked with second through fifth grade students; or full-time interventionists who worked with second through fifth grade students, (b) those who worked with struggling students through the response to intervention model for a total of at least two years, (c) those who currently work with least one student who is identified as a child who would benefit from response to intervention measures, (d) those who would be available for one classroom visit, to attend one focus group session, and one personal interview, and (e) would be willing to participate in the study. Administrators were purposefully selected so that each principal who participated (a) worked in a school as an administrator for at least two years, (b) had at least one student who was participating in RtI, and (c) would be willing to participate in the study. Although a small number of participants were expected, using the specific criteria for the sample helped to ensure that all participants had similar experiences and would be familiar with the topics so each would be able to participate fully in the discussions surrounding the research question and sub-questions. The justification for using a random, purposeful and convenient sampling method meets the criteria as outlined by Creswell (2010) and Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) to select participants and sites that will best help the researcher to answer the research question and research problem.
66
The random purposive method of sampling was necessary to ensure the participants were familiar with the experiences associated with working with children who were struggling and as teachers and interventionists were involved in communicating and collaborating, to some extent, to support the learner. In addition, each administrator must have been involved, in some way, with teachers and interventionists as they carried out the duties expected throughout the process of RtI. The lived experiences of each group of participants must be similar with practices that are familiar among the different groups and this is best accomplished through a random purposive sampling from a homogeneous group within a South Carolina district (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). All participants who were selected for the generic qualitative study were considered professionals, not only due to the amount of experience in the field but, because additionally, each teacher and interventionist was trained and provided with district-level staff development and supervision. Factors that resulted in a population of low-risk included (a) the researcher’s school was not eligible for the study, (b) the researcher did not hold a supervisory role to the members of the sample, and (c) all protocols for focus group moderator and individual interview questioning were followed. At the beginning of each focus group session, the researcher explained her role as moderator was to begin each questioning phase but would not be an active participant in the discussion. Sample Size The sample included six classroom teachers who have at least one student identified as participating in the response to intervention model. In addition, six 67
interventionists, teachers who hold a South Carolina elementary education certificate and who work with the at-risk children using researched-based instructional materials, were included in the sample. Finally, four building administrators who have teachers and interventionists working within intervention programs agreed to participate. Kruger and Casey (2009) explain that when the study is used to gain an understanding of people’s experiences, a smaller group size is most effective. Another struggle with large focus groups is the difficulty of meeting the needs of all participants to find a convenient date and time to meet. With the smaller group size, it is more likely that the participants will be able to adjust and accommodate schedules so that the group can actually meet. Two groups were initiated with six participants in each group in order to meet or exceed minimum standards (Krueger, 1994) and group sizes were within the range of four to six participants each, depending on those willing to participate. Setting South Carolina currently has 81 public school districts and the data collected for this study is taken from a large district in this state which scored a letter grade of “B” with 89.3% on the 2014 Elementary and Secondary Education Act report card rating. The participants in this study were employed in elementary schools from a large school district in South Carolina, which most recently has 27 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, 10 high schools, and three alternative learning centers, such as academies and institutes within the school district (South Carolina Department of Education, 2014). Each elementary school in the study were equally eligible to participate in data collection except for the elementary school where the researcher is employed so that the findings would be considered reliable and credible and to avoid what Creswell (2009) calls 68
“Backyard” research, which involves data collection in the researcher’s own organization. This type of research often leads to lower validity and reader confidence and has been avoided in the current study of communication and collaboration. The large district was utilized for the diversity among the individual elementary schools; however, the district does standardize the implementation of response to intervention, so the lived experiences were expected to be similar with some variance and diversity in each elementary school. The findings in this study may be beneficial for other districts in South Carolina and beyond when the school is using the response to intervention method of serving and remediating the students who are not making adequate yearly progress and are served by both classroom teachers and interventionists for instructional purposes. Individual classroom visits were conducted at a time and place convenient for the participant and included interventionists’ self-contained classrooms, general education teachers’ homerooms, and one field experience where the students and teacher were outside conducting an experiment at the time of the observation. Focus group sessions were held in a central location to the various elementary schools and was each began after the school day ended at 4:30-5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST). The researcher provided refreshments, which is a common practice for educators who are expected to attend an afterschool meeting. The locations were comfortable with adequate lighting and space to set up seating in a way that all participants could easily see and hear each other. Individual interviews were arranged at a time and place convenient for the participant; most were held in the educator’s classroom in adult chairs. This location resulted in participants accessing records, antidotal notes, and email correspondence when prompted through the questioning route. 69
Recruitment When a focus group is part of the data collection and method of understanding participants lived experiences, recruitment strategies are very important. Krueger and Casey (2009) write that mini focus groups that have four to six participants have become more popular because the group size is more appealing to participants, are easier to host, and easier for which to recruit participants. The authors go on to explain that the group must be diverse enough to have some variation among the group members to get a good contrast but not so much variation that some participants defer to those members of the group that they perceive to be more experienced, better educated, or more knowledgeable. In an effort to obtain a diverse group with varied experiences with response to intervention among the elementary schools within the large district, all elementary schools were included in the invitation sent to the potential participants except for the school in which the researcher worked. Recruitment in this study was satisfied by sending a blind copy email letter explaining the purpose of the study, the researcher’s need for the collection of data, the number of meetings and time commitment expected of each participant, the extent of confidentiality one would expect, eligibility requirements, and the phone number and contact information in the event clarification was needed. A separate letter was sent to teachers, interventionists, and principals and outlined the factors that had to be met in order to be eligible for each group. The first mass email effort did not elicit an adequate response with participants interested in joining the study, so an additional email notification was sent three weeks later with increased interest and responses.
70
An individualized reply was sent to each educator who responded to the initial or follow-up email answering any questions and thanking the participant for taking time to be involved in the study. After the minimum number of participants was obtained, a survey was sent to each person with suggested dates and times to determine a mutually agreeable time and place for the focus group meeting. At all times, interventionists and teachers were sent separate notifications and email correspondences so that study remained at a low-risk of distress for the participants. It may be natural for members of one group to worry that the other group identifies them as responsible for difficulties or issues that may be identified during the focus group sessions. Finally, a reminder email was sent several days prior to the focus group meetings and individual interviews to ensure the participant was still available and willing to participate. A total of eleven participants were able to arrange a classroom visit and all 12 participants were able to attend the focus group meetings and a total of thirteen participants were able to complete the individual interviews.
Data Collection Data collection for this study required superintendent approval and access to the district’s employee email addresses, which were obtained through a written response to a letter to the district’s superintendent. The participants in this study each received a mass email sent to the district employee’s address describing the purpose of the study, the time commitment expected, the purpose of the focus group, classroom visit, and individual interview, and the eligibility requirements. This study required voluntary participation and information on how to obtain additional information about the study or the 71
researcher, or agree to be a part of the study was also included in the email. In response to the email message, a total of nine interventionists responded with two expressing regret that they would not be able to participate and one who, with additional information, chose not to be included in the study; a total of seven teacher responses were received with one educator asking for additional information before finally agreeing to the study, and one response of regret from a teacher who would not be able to participate. Six administrators responded and the first four were accepted into the study with no additional information required from the group. Classroom observations were held for each teacher and interventionist to gain knowledge and insight into how the teacher interacts with all students in the classroom, teaching style, proximity to students, and the use of questioning techniques and student support when necessary. The increased understanding of each focus group member was necessary for the researcher to fully comprehend and appreciate comments or suggestions that might be given during the focus group discussions. The use of classroom visits also provided a clear representation of each teacher’s teaching style and was used to ensure the researcher did not assign her personal pedagogy to the participant when analyzing data collected through focus group interactions or individual interviews. Audio recordings were made of each observation with a single snapshot of the teacher with the class as an added reminder of the event. Each focus group session and individual interview was recorded through antidotal notes by the researcher, as well as digital audio recording of the groups’ interactions or individual responses. Interview sessions and focus group meetings were held at dates and times that were mutually convenient for all involved. 72
Focus group interactions were captured through a questioning route that was analyzed by experts in the field and changes were finalized before the sessions began. Teachers and interventionists were asked to reflect on the amount and types of interactions and collaborative exchanges with other educators in their building as they considered students who were involved in the response to intervention process. The questioning route was semi-structured, as explained by asking all participants to respond to each question before soliciting additional comments or discussion on the topic (see Appendix A). The individual interview questions were designed and written to expound on the participants’ responses and additional information was collected which the participant might not have been comfortable sharing among the group, thus ensuring an accurate understanding of each participant’s individual experience within the school setting. Data results, through the structured efforts of the focus groups, classroom observations, and individual interviews, were organized in order to carefully code the experiences into themes presented in this study. A multiple systematic approach was incorporated through the use of HyperRESEARCH (version 3.5.2) and HyperTRANSCRIBE (version 1.6.1), which aided the researcher in analyzing the data collected through the identification of prominent points or relevant structures, patterns, and themes, and hand-sorting data to identify themes and categories. Each set of data was reviewed multiple times using the constant comparative data analysis technique and in each instance the researcher was looking for the existence of recurring events or consistent opinions among teachers and interventionists as a group, or across the field among teachers and interventionists as each works with a struggling student. Once the 73
data were analyzed, the researcher reviewed the findings with individual participants, ensuring confidentiality, to confirm the meaning extracted from the focus group session was accurate and reliable.
Field Test The interview and focus group questions were designed by the use of field testing and expert review. Experts in the field of qualitative research and the use of focus group data collection were consulted and several iterations of the questioning route were developed before the final questions were decided upon for use in this research study. Study and consideration of the questions were presented to three qualified and experienced researchers within the field of education through face-to-face meetings, email correspondence, and the United States postal service. The researchers were directly associated with academia in elementary educators’ pre-service preparation, served on the faculty of a local university, were each published in peer-reviewed journals, and understood the concept of response to intervention, as well as focus group and individual interview questioning routes for data collection in qualitative research. Instruction was also given by the experts on proper interview protocol, asking probing questions as necessary, the use of reflective field notes, and the goals of active listening. The coaching from the experts in qualitative research questioning were commensurate with the research literature studied during the researcher’s coursework with Capella University and the various authors who are known in the field of qualitative research such as: Creswell (2009), Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010), and Merriam (2009).
74
Data Analysis Procedures The use of generic qualitative data collection was used in this research study which, as explained by Creswell (2010), depends on text and image data, utilize diverse strategies of inquiry, and requires unique steps in data analysis. Krueger and Casey (2009) explain focus group analysis as that which is practical, systematic, and verifiable as opposed to subjective answers to research questions that lead the reader to any conclusion the researcher decided would be the outcome of the study. The authors describe data analysis, which identifies themes, that precisely fits the purpose of the study and where all information presented points back to the purpose and where information gleaned from the data is weighed against the purpose and thus results in a study that stays on course and focused. As the purpose of this study was to examine how the role of teachers, interventionists, and administrators determines the effectiveness of communication among the team who work with at-risk students through response to intervention, the data collected was analyzed using an inductive and comparative approach that draws on the constant comparative method (Merriam, 2009) and where the multiple feedback loops emphasizes how the team collaborates and communicates, how next step decisions are made, and to what extent the student is supported through these communication efforts as he or she moves from class to class. While focus group and individual interview data analysis is complex, Krueger and Casey (2009) have identified four critical qualities that must exist in order to achieve sound conclusions from these data: a) a prescribed, sequential process, b) verifiable results that can be confirmed by another researcher, c) a sequential process in design and analysis, d) ongoing analysis that informs the next set of data collection questions or 75
strategies. Merriam (2009) describes this idea as non-linear where the researcher determines the next phase of data collection being determined through emerging insights, hunches and tentative hypothesis or refinement and reformulation of focus group questions or questioning routes. Initially, all data must be transcribed and recorded which not only establishes a record of the interview or focus group session, but also facilitates further analysis (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). The data for this research was transcribed by the researcher and was supplemented with antidotal notes and mapping the focus group interactions to capture the non-verbal information gleaned from the groups exchanges and order of participant responses, and the pace and utterances which might not otherwise be recorded as a response. It was apparent when initially transcribing the focus group session that nods of agreement and guttural vocal affirmation or disagreement was necessary. Although transcript based analysis is more time consuming and produces lengthy documents, it is more thorough than the abridged transcript, which removes irrelevant conversation and moderator directions (Krueger & Casey, 2009). After transcribing all focus group sessions and individual interviews, the process of coding and sorting the themes and the categories can be handled in a variety of ways. Two common strategies for first-time qualitative researchers are: a) the classic analysis strategy (Krueger & Casey, 2009), which the author describes as low-tech and unsophisticated, also described as the “cut and paste” method (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), and b) computer-assisted content analysis, which uses programs to search multiple documents for keywords and associations, as well as frequency of associations, which can take substantial effort to program but yield very detailed analysis of the data presented. Analysis of data in this research study incorporated a blend of computer 76
assisted analysis and hand coding using color-coded records of sessions which were manually sorted and analyzed. These data used for this study were based on the classic analysis strategy proposed by Krueger and Casey (2009), which calls for the researcher to: 1. establish an area where slips of paper can be laid out undisturbed through the entire data analysis process, 2. numbering each line of each transcript so that individual quotes can be easily recorded and relocated as necessary, 3. printing each transcript on a different paper color thereby coding the audience type, category, or group, 4. reading all transcripts to recall the scope of what was discussed and to refresh memory, 5. cutting and categorizing similar concepts or comments together and rearrange as necessary, 6. writing a descriptive summary of the variety of quotes in response to each of the themes generated This process was conducted with each of the individual interviews and each focus group session so that common themes and categories were visually available and further comparing and contrasting was possible. Initial analysis was accomplished using HyperRESEARCH (version 3.5.2) and HyperTRANSCRIBE (version 1.6.1) followed by the hand coding method. Each method uses fundamentally the same system of searching for keywords, themes, and categories. As a first-time researcher, the use of the computer generated results to validate the 77
themes and categories derived from reading the transcribed interviews provided a confirmation of the themes and categories, which emerged through the analysis of the data. Merriam (2009) describes the task as comparing one unit of information with the next as the researcher looks for regularities in the data and breaking each unit down to bits of information that can be assigned to categories or themes. The multi-loop process was utilized while these data for the study were analyzed.
Limitations of the Research Design All research, be it qualitative or quantitative, is concerned with a valid and reliable outcome that answers the original research question. Reporting information obtained through data collection and analysis that assures the reader of accurate findings is essential as studies inform other research in the field. It is the duty of all researchers to adhere to guidelines that ensure valid and reliable information while following ethical research techniques. Regardless of the type of research, careful attention to the way data are collected, the methods employed to analyze the data, the way the data are interpreted, and how findings are reported and presented bring about an approach that can prove the validity and reliability of a study (Merriam, 2009). It is essential for a researcher to follow guidelines that have been established by well-known researchers and proven to be effective; to follow procedures that can be replicated by other researchers and the same or very near results can be reproduced using similar data.
78
Credibility Credibility is the match between the research findings and what is found in reality at that time (Merriam, 2009). To elaborate, the need for creditability can be directly related to the trustworthiness of the findings and the bias of the researcher. During the study, the bias of the researcher was constantly in check through self-reflection when analyzing and reporting findings from the data, however, the reader must be made aware of the background that shapes the researcher’s character thus being transparent when reporting data. Creswell (2009) summarizes qualitative validity and reliability is a combination of following a specific protocol through the research design and reporting accurate findings with reasonable interpretations that can be replicated. The design of this study was constructed with a focus on reliability procedures such as: a) transcripts checked for obvious mistakes made during transcription, and b) ensuring definition of codes did not wavier from the original meaning by constantly comparing and adding memos as needed (Creswell, 2009). Member checking or respondent validation (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009) was used in this research study when one or more participants were asked to validate the researcher’s understanding of a term, phrase, or ideas presented in the focus group meeting or individual interview to ensure the meaning was interpreted as the member expected and intended.
Transferability Another method of ensuring accuracy in interpretation during the data analysis included using thick description. Detailed description of participants’ ordinary elements 79
of everyday life were included in order to fully capture the meaning of these experiences for the reader (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). Thick, rich descriptions were also included in the study to solicit confidence with the reported data as themes and categories, as well as participants and setting, were fully explained. Generalization or transferring the information outside the study is used in a limited way in qualitative research (Creswell, 2009). Findings are developed in the context of a specific site. The issue of collaboration, communication, and the role of educators in the public school can be cross-referenced with studies conducted at other sites to determine if the same phenomenon occurs. Ensuring precise documentation in the study will allow the research to be repeated in other locations to determine if a transfer of knowledge or behaviors can be found. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010), explain that although findings may not be able to be transferred to all other settings, there may be lessons learned that can be useful in another setting.
Expected Findings Based on the previous research reviewed in preparation for this study through the literature review, the findings were expected to include the following: •
the primary research focus which questioned in what ways teachers, interventionists, and administrators interact and communicate to support the academic success of at-risk learners: Educators would express different patterns of collaboration and communication, as well as strategies and discussions each had to ensure the learner’s success. Time is considered a reasonable issue that would be present as a struggle for both teacher and interventionist. 80
•
the sub-question regarding the ways the RtI team members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress: Due to the protocol in place in the district, participants would most likely feel involved and express input when in the role of the teacher. Those in other roles, however, are expected to have very little input in the collaboration efforts of the team through the RtI process.
•
the sub-question concerning the ways RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress: As team members, each participant in all roles are expected to describe communication efforts of various lengths and depth with one another, as well as with others in the same role in the building based on the need for support and confirmation that one is fulfilling the requirements of the position.
•
the sub-question regarding ways in which RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another: As teachers and interventionists fulfill the district’s expectations of each separate position within the school, one would not expect that the other would be eager to suggest strategies that are working in one classroom or suggest that the other has the time or inclination to adopt another way of presenting information in the classroom, even to the benefit of the struggling student.
•
the sub-question that asks what ways the RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team: Based on the literature review, it is not expected that one group would be comfortable making
81
these suggestions due to the fact that those in one role might not feel adequately equipped to share this information. As the theoretical framework of this study suggests in the research findings of Beehr (1981), it is probable that the role each educator holds within the organization will dictate the behavior of the teacher and interventionists. Each participant knows the district’s expectation of the position and those who hold a different job in the organization from the other would not suggest that he or she knows enough about the other’s position to share strategies or ideas. Diversity may occur from building to building if the administrator is instrumental in providing a time and place for the teacher and interventionist to meet and provide the resources necessary for substantial collaboration and idea sharing, as Rae, McLaughlin, Walther-Thomas (2002) write.
Ethical Issues Researcher's Position Statement Conflict of interest assessment. The researcher was an employee of the district where the data was collected for this study, however in order to limit a conflict of interest with the participants, employees from the researcher’s base school were not eligible to participate. The research participants may or may not have been familiar with the researcher due to the fact that the school board offers various staff development sessions throughout the district for several days before the start of each school year. Nonetheless, the researcher was not a direct supervisor of the participant group so the likelihood of a conflict of interest was very low.
82
The focus groups were selected so that each group consisted of colleagues who were expected to form professional learning communities within each school and the participants, although most likely not familiar with each other, were not a high risk population. Because the study was voluntary in nature, the participation of each teacher, interventionist, and administrator was presented with an open forum to benefit struggling learners who are involved in the response to intervention process. Position statement. The researcher is a life-long learner who has held a position of teacher, instructional coach, and presently assistant principal in the district selected for the study of communication and collaboration among educators. Successfully holding a variety of roles in the same elementary school gave the researcher a unique understanding of each role within an organization and the perspective of understanding curriculum and assisting struggling learners in each position. The researcher has experienced the teacher’s perspective of having struggling learners who were removed from the classroom to be provided intervention by another teacher outside the classroom. Although positive strides have been added to the system, such as researched-based programs, as well as certified, highly-qualified teachers who hold interventionists positions, this research topic is not fully understood and has potential for successful techniques to be shared, perfected, and even adopted across schools within the district and beyond to help the struggling learner make adequate yearly growth and eventually catch up growth. Ethical Issues in the Study Ethical treatment of human subjects is at the forefront of all research and must include a focus on each person’s rights, needs, and values, as well as the desires of the 83
participants (Creswell, 2009). The data collection methods and protocol were reviewed by the International Review Board and were determined to be ethical, safe, and were carried out with integrity following the subsequent guidelines: a) In order to protect the human participants of the study from harm, the researcher posed a questioning route that would not jeopardize the person’s employment with the district. b) Informed consent was delivered, reviewed, and signed by participants in the study. The information was presented through a Capella University template format personalized for this study and included permission for the participant to be audio and video taped or digitally recorded. c) Participants understood their participation was voluntary and the right to leave the study at any time without prior notice was reviewed. d) Educators were encouraged to participate fully and that all participants agreed to keep all information obtained through the focus group discussions private and not be repeated outside the group session. Focus group participants were asked to share both positive and negative ideas as described in the focus group questioning route [Appendix B]. Participants were expected to be honest and forthright when answering questions or responding to other participants. e) All names and identifying remarks were omitted from all reported and published information. Data was kept confidential under password-protected technology and locked file cabinets for paper copies of transcripts with a plan to destroy the documents and electronic files after seven years.
84
f) The researcher maintained strict protocol with regard to privacy and explained the researcher’s and participant’s rights and responsibilities which included avenues the participant could take if her or she felt uncomfortable with the questioning or conversation during the focus group portion of the data collection. g) The participant group was not high risk in that participants could chose to share only to the level each felt comfortable. Participant and researcher responsibilities were reviewed at the start of each focus group session.
Chapter 3 Summary The purpose of this study centered on the level of collaboration and communication among teachers and interventionists when working with struggling students through the response to intervention process. In addition, the analysis of the data will also provide information on the role of each educator in the organization, the function and input of the administrator, and the impact of the student moving out of the general classroom to receive the researched-based intervention provided by the interventionist and the ability of each teacher to ensure continuity and support in transferring the strategies from one classroom to the other. Qualitative data collection through focus groups and individual interviews were chosen for this study based on the nature of the lived experiences of the participants in their natural settings. Analysis of data collected using the interpretive method was most appropriate due to the ability of the researcher to use an open-ended questioning route that explored the participants experiences in great detail and depth and allowed for an
85
accurate account of the educators’ lived experiences and the meaning the participant attributes to his or her experiences. Based on the review of the literature, the idea of organizational roles and the ability of the participants to be fully active in the collaboration and communication necessary to help the struggling student succeed were explored through the use of multiple data collection efforts including classroom observations, teacher-provided documents and notes, individual interviews, and group interactions through focus group sessions. A great deal of research can be found concerning the response to intervention model, however understanding the ability and efforts of the teachers who work with struggling students to communicate, collaborate, and devise strategies to assist children to transfer learning strategies from one setting to another has not been widely studied. In addition, the complex hierarchy of an organization with multiple roles and unspoken rules affect the employees’ ability to communicate and collaborate within the goaloriented, social entity of the school setting are not readily found in the existing research. It was the goal of this research to determine the systems that were working well within schools so that successful outcomes may be replicated to support the struggling student through the response to intervention process and ensure academic progress for all students.
86
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Introduction Through the response to intervention (RtI) model, students are supported by multiple teachers as interventions are applied through various strategies to determine if the student might be successful over a period of time and able to catch up to his or her peers academically and/or socially. Data are recorded and next steps are determined through a team approach to the examination of these data as students fluidly move among three intervention tiers. When the interventions are successful the student moves back into the general education model and maintains adequate yearly progress; when a student begins to struggle, the child is moved to Tier II for strategic support or moved to more intensive support in Tier IIIA or Tier IIIB. With parent input, the team makes educational decisions designed to provide remediation at the earliest stages so that the likelihood of a special education label for the child is lessened. The shift in practice of identifying students for special education has moved the educators to a more inclusive model and created a need for ongoing collaboration and communication among interventionists and general education teachers within the building. While the goal of remediation is based on the team members working together to form a cohesive education experience for the struggling learner (Wilcox, MurakamiRamalho, & Urick, 2013), it is unclear if the current structure of elementary education within the organization and leadership of building administration have the necessary 87
structures in place to accomplish this goal. It is the purpose of this study to examine the ways in which teachers, interventionists, and administrators who work with at-risk students through the response to intervention model collaborate and communicate and the effectiveness of these efforts to advance the academic achievement for struggling students. This chapter contains the data collected in an effort to seek an understanding of these questions. The following research questions were addressed in this study to narrow the focus of the research: RQ1: In what ways do RtI tem members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? RQ2: In what ways do RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? RQ3: In what ways do RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another? RQ4: In what ways do the RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team? Presented in this chapter are a description of the setting and participants, a presentation of the methodology and analysis, and a summary of the key findings. In this study, six elementary education classroom teachers, six interventionists, and four administrators from elementary schools in a specific school district in South Carolina participated in this study. In all cases, the schools where the participants worked were involved in the RtI process as mandated by the central office five years prior to the start 88
of this study. A generic qualitative research design was used to carry out the research with data collected through individual interviews, focus group interactions, classroom visits, and documents. As with many qualitative studies, data were analyzed by developing themes and patterns from the experiences of the participants through the interpretation of the discussions. Identified themes and sub-themes will be examined using the research questions and participants’ narratives will accompany the findings. This chapter will conclude with a summary of the key findings from the chapter.
Description of the Setting and Participants The participants in the study were all employed in a large South Carolina district, which includes over 25 elementary schools. The participants were reasonably familiar with the RtI process because the central office expects every school to participate in the systematic use of universal screening data and benchmarks to determine the level of intervention, if any, is needed. The way the school provides and organizes the intervention is different at the school level due to the amount of funding the school receives from various programs and subsidies, and how the administration choses to spend these monies. Qualified participants from 14 of the 26 elementary schools responded to the recruitment notice and were subsequently involved in the data collection process (see Table 1). Four administrators from four different elementary schools within the district participated in the study and one administrator was the principal at the retired interventionist’s elementary school. The six classroom teachers who participated in the study were from six different elementary schools within the district, and the six 89
interventionists were also from six different elementary schools. One elementary school housed both an interventionist and a classroom teacher, however the two did not participate in the same focus group session. The demographics of the 14 elementary schools were substantially different in terms of poverty rate and ethnicity. In addition, one school in particular had a large number of Hispanic students, which presented a unique situation in the response to intervention process. English Language Learners (ELL) or English as a Second Language (ESOL) students are not considered for RtI for several years to rule out a language barrier as opposed to a learning disability. One administrator and one interventionist worked at this particular school.
Table 1. District Schools Represented Teachers School A School B School C School D School E School F
Interventionists
Principals
School A School G School H School I School J School K
School L School G School M School N
Data were collected at the school site for classroom observations and individual interviews. Focus group meetings were held at a non-distinct library in a school that was centrally located and convenient to the participants. Administrator interviews were held in the offices of each administrator at times that were suitable to both the researcher and the participant. The data collection sites alone played no significant role in the analysis of these data. 90
Description of Sample Participants in this study were involved in the response to intervention model within the school setting in unique capacities including general education classroom teachers (see Table 2), interventionists, some who served as lead interventionists (see Table 3), and building administrators (see Table 4) in a leadership role. All participants worked in an elementary school setting in schools that housed either child development through fifth grade or grades two and three only. Focus groups were conducted with teachers and interventionists with each group in a separate session.
Table 2. Teacher Participants Participant Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 Teacher 5 Teacher 6
Gender
Experience
F F M F F F
9 Years 4 Years 12 Years 10 Years 7 Years 9 Years
Certificate Early Childhood/Elementary Early Childhood Early Childhood/Elementary Early Childhood Early Childhood/Elementary Elementary
Teacher participants all held a valid South Carolina teaching certificate in early childhood education, elementary education, or a dual certification. The majority of the participants were female with one male participant. The years of experience ranged from four to twelve years in the teacher participant sample. The teachers all worked in various elementary buildings throughout the district and served at least one student who left the classroom for intervention as a part of RtI. One teacher and one interventionist worked in the same building at the time these data were collected, however no attempt was made to correlate the data between these two participants. 91
Table 3. Intervention Participants Participant
Gender
Experience
Interventionist 1 Interventionist 2 Interventionist 3 Interventionist 4 Interventionist 5 Interventionist 6
F F F F F F
40 Years 17 Years 17 Years 38 Years 4 Years 7 Years
Responsibilities Core Replacement/Intervention/Math-ELA Lead Intervention/ELA Intervention/Math-ELA Lead Intervention/Math-ELA Core Replacement/Intervention/Math-ELA Core Replacement/Intervention/Math-ELA
The interventionists who participated in this study were employed in the district as an interventionist or lead interventionist and worked with struggling students in both math and English language arts (ELA). All participants in the interventionists group were female. The range of years in the intervention position was between four and six years and the total number of years in education was between four years and forty years. One participant retired the year following the data collection for this study. Three of the teachers taught students who did not return to the general education classroom for any part of the English language arts block, however teachers did pull these children for small group work for a minimum of 15 minutes per day. The work with the teacher did not reflect the grade on the student’s report card and a note was included on the document indicating the student was working at a level below his or her peers in ELA or math. All interventionists worked in buildings where a planning period was provided and each interventionist was supervised by a lead interventionist in the building. Several interventionists were working an abbreviated schedule and not all participants were required to handle clerical work or student supervision duties.
92
Table 4. Administrator Participants Participant
Gender
Administrator 1 Administrator 2 Administrator 3 Administrator 4
M M M F
Total Experience 28 Years 21 Years 15 Years 21 Years
Administration Experience 17 Years 11 Years 8 Years 14 Years
Administrators who participated in this study were primarily male with one female principal in this sample. Each administrator attends monthly meetings at the district level where collaboration with colleagues and district staff are provided, expectations are shared, and clerical information is disseminated. The total experience of this group ranges from 15 to 28 years with administration experience ranging from 8 to 17 years of service. No match between interventionists or teachers and administrators was considered, although at the time of the data collection one administrator and one interventionist worked in the same building.
Participants Classroom observations were conducted before the interview process began so that the teaching style and evidence of individual support of struggling learners by teachers and interventionists could be revealed. Participants were observed for signs of individual assistance among the students in the classroom, signs of student collaboration designed to support all learners, the use of manipulatives designed to support the struggling student and the availability of these aids, and signs of teacher reinforcing effort and recognition through specific feedback. The researcher’s perception of the teacher and interventionist teaching styles are reported in this section as a means of describing 93
the participants’ work with students as noted during a single classroom observation, which was prearranged with the participant. No discussion with the participant occurred at the time of the observation and principal approval of the researcher’s presence in the building was obtained in advance.
Table 5. Classroom Observation Data Participant Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 Teacher 5 Teacher 6 Interventionist 1 Interventionist 2 Interventionist 3 Interventionist 4 Interventionist 5 Interventionist 6
Assistance
Collaboration
Manipulatives
Explicit Praise
Yes Yes No Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
No No No Yes N/A Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes N/A Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes
Yes No Yes Yes N/A No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Teacher 1. The female teacher works at a school with an absolute rating of “good” and a “below average” growth rating in 2014. The teacher currently works with third grade students in a general education homeroom where children who receive intervention are pulled out of the classroom. This classroom had one teacher and 21 students at the time of the observation. The teacher had her desks arranged in groups of four and some of the children were using calculators and fraction sticks. Although not all children were using the 94
manipulatives, each table group had a basket with the items available for easy access. The students’ seating arrangement was conducive to collaboration although students were working individually for this assignment; the teacher did not encourage collaboration among pairs or group members. During the lesson the teacher circulated and worked with student groups and provided assistance briefly and then moved on to the next group of students. Procedures were evident and students adhered to the group norms posted in the classroom. The teacher provided individual praise and specific redirection as she stopped at table groups (see Table 5). Teacher 2: The female teacher works in a second grade classroom at an elementary school with an absolute rating of “good” and a growth rating of “average” for the 2014 school year. Most of the intervention in this school is provided through the pullout model, however the interventionist has a planning period and comes into the room and checks on and supports a particular student, when possible. This occurred during the scheduled observation with the visit lasting approximately four minutes. The teacher was using the rotation model for ELA as she worked with two different small groups during this observation. The students rotated approximately every 20-25 minutes and the students were divided into five groups of four to five students. The student teacher ratio in this classroom was 21:1 and 21:2 for the few minutes the additional teacher was in the room. The students not assigned to work with the teacher were at desks or the carpeted area using iPads and computers in the classroom. All students not being served by the teacher were accessing individualized digital content through Compass Odyssey. While students were in small group with the teacher, specific skills were reviewed and students 95
were required to read from a leveled reader and answer comprehension questions. No manipulatives or study aids were present. Teacher question and answer (Q&A) and summarizing were the most frequent learning strategies presented by the teacher during her lesson and because the students were so near the teacher was able to monitor and adjust the lesson accordingly providing direct assistance. Although general praise was provided, specific praise related to the students’ task was not evident, nor was student collaboration or the use of manipulatives witnessed during this observation (see Table 5). Teacher 3. The male teacher was working in a fourth grade class in the elementary school that earned the score of “average” in both absolute and growth ratings for the 2014 school year. Intervention in this classroom is provided through the pull-out model and the student to teacher ratio was 18:1 at the time of the scheduled observation. The teacher used a great deal of verbal praise and specific student reinforcement comments pertaining to the work the class was assigned. The students were invited to the Smart Board to write the answer to a particular question, however the engagement of the rest of the class was not evident as the students waited and watched as the child at the board responded. The students were well managed by following procedures and posted classroom rules and the teacher appeared to keep tight control on student input and contributions to the lesson. The teacher did not use manipulatives during this lesson and no opportunity for student collaboration was evident during the visit. The teacher was presenting a lesson in English language arts as described in the lesson plan he provided the researcher upon entering the classroom and did not appear to monitor the student work for accuracy or assistance for struggling students (see Table 5).
96
Teacher 4. The female second grade teacher has earned her National Board certification and works at a school that received an absolute rating of “excellent” and a growth rating of “average” for the 2014 school year. The teacher’s room was set up with maximum carpet space using a colorful rug with individual squares taped off, table groups in pods of six desks, and a designated area with a kidney table for teacher-led groups to meet. The teacher was the only one in the room and she had 22 students in attendance at the time of the visit. The teacher repositioned the students frequently during the lesson and did not lose time with transition, as the students all seemed to understand her clear expectations for each change. The students were presented with a lesson on the carpet and then retreated to the desks for the next part of the lesson. The teacher introduced a new manipulative, however during the entirety of the lesson, the teacher provided step-by-step directions without students benefiting from trial and error discovery with the tools. The teacher was pleasant and gave specific verbal and non-verbal cues and praises to the students. Instructional strategies were limited to teacher Q&A and brief student-to-student interaction using turn and talk opportunities. The teacher circulated and looked for misunderstandings among the student groups, correcting the children and moving on to other learners (see Table 5). Teacher 5. The female second grade teacher works at a school with a “good” rating in both absolute and growth for the 2014 school year. The teacher reports she teaches a class size of 20 students and she is the only teacher in the room. Students in her building are pulled out for intervention and she currently has two students who are in the response to intervention process. 97
Two separate attempts to visit the teacher’s classroom prior to the focus group session were unsuccessful due to illness and a school-wide assessment. Due to this assessment, students were missing from her classroom for three weeks during the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) test. The teacher explained that she would be repeating some lessons and using small group instruction to catch up those who missed the direct instruction throughout the week. In this school scores are used to group students for instruction, instead of using a homogeneous homeroom grouping, this year (see Table 5). Teacher 6. The third grade female teacher works in an elementary school, which earned a score of “excellent” for the absolute rating and a score of “good” for the growth rating in the 2014 school year. The school uses an inclusion model for part of the student’s time with the interventionist and the student is pulled out for progress monitoring or assessments. This school has very few students in the RtI process and the teacher has only one student assigned to an interventionist this year. The teacher works alone in the classroom with a student count of 18. Students were working on understanding the vocabulary of an upcoming reading selection and opportunities for collaboration was evident. The teacher used Smart Board lessons to supply the program’s sequences of learning objectives without having to refer to the teacher’s manual for assistance. The teacher did not appear to provide assistance for any particular student in the room, however she was closely monitoring the student work as she navigated the room. The teacher was able to maintain the integrity of the lesson as she stopped to add supplemental information or to correct misunderstandings as she encountered them. Students were given multiple opportunities to work 98
collaboratively together to develop a definition and picture for the words assigned. The students used technology as a reference device, manipulatives as tools to develop a presentation display, and resource charts around the room to check for understanding and self-correct. The teacher used several different learning strategies and brought an air of excitement to the room that provided encouragement for the struggling learner. Student partnerships were also used to support students who were not able to keep up with the pace of the lesson (see Table 5). Interventionist 1. The interventionist works at an elementary school in the district and teaches second, third, and fourth grade students who fall in the strategic and intensive categories. The interventionist teaches core replacement to second and third grade students. The school holds an absolute rating of “excellent” and a growth rating of “average” for the 2014 school year. The students were seated in desks that were in a circle with the teacher occupying one of the seats. The group was involved in a discussion about an upcoming writing prompt and the teacher referenced several content charts hanging on the wall when the children struggled. Later in the class period, one child referred to the chart for information without prompting. The class consisted of one interventionist and six students. Children continued to work independently on a writing piece that was already in progress from a previous class period. The teacher circulated and helped individual students as the children worked independently providing positive reinforcement and assistance through suggestions or additional writing ideas. The teacher used Q&A during this observation with no collaboration during the assignment (see Table 5).
99
Interventionist 2. The interventionist worked with first, second, and third grade students at an elementary school in the district and held the role of lead interventionist at her school. The school earned a score of “excellent” for the absolute rating and “average” for the growth rating during the 2014 school year. The interventionist served students for thirty minutes and did not teach a core replacement program. During the observation, the interventionist used manipulatives and content specific resources to support student learning. Students were working in pairs with one triad group due to the number of students. The student teacher ratio was 9:1 during this class period. The teacher moved about the student pairs and the children were actively engaged in the ELA learning activity. The teacher used advanced organizers, a sorting activity, teacher Q&A, and student collaboration as teaching strategies at different points in her lesson. The teacher reviewed skills, allowed students to practice with teacher support, and then with a partner before the teacher had children work independently. Feedback was provided during the teacher led Q&A as well as during the partner work as the teacher circulated about the room offering assistance to struggling learners. The teacher concluded the lesson with an exit slip that each student handed the teacher upon leaving the classroom (see Table 5). Interventionist 3. The interventionist works at an elementary school in the district with an absolute rating of “average” and an “at-risk” rating for growth during the 2014 school year. The interventionist serves second, third, and fifth grade students in both an hour-long intensive core replacement program, as well as several 45-minute classes for strategic learners using the Voyager Passport program. The student to teacher ratio was 5:1 in this classroom during the observation. 100
The teacher was working with her students using the Voyager Passport program at a kidney-shaped reading table. The teacher edition was in front of the teacher and she delivered the program with fidelity. It was natural for the teacher to deliver specific feedback to the students as she praised correct responses and repeated why the answers were correct. The teacher used non-verbal cues to keep students engaged in the lesson by tapping the student text if she felt children were not able to follow along and adjusting the pace and volume of her voice to keep the student’s interest. Time was honored as the teacher moved from one activity to another and parts of her lesson were supported with visual aides and content-specific manipulatives. Supplies for the students were available and procedures were clearly established (see Table 5). Interventionist 4. The interventionist works with students in core replacement at an elementary school with an absolute rating of “good” and a growth rating of “below average” during the 2014 school year. The elementary school has a widely diverse ethnic population and many students are served in an English as a second language program. The interventionist retired after completing the school year in which these data were collected. Her assignments include intervention for grades two and three only. The one teacher had her seven students seated on the carpet near the board and her classroom management was punitive at times. Students were asked to move to an area away from the group when he or she did not follow procedures. The teacher used Q&A as the primary instructional strategy during this observation while the children worked on a program designed for strategic learners. The soft scripted program was followed, however some discrepancy was noted during the delivery. Students were not provided individual assistance during this lesson; the teacher led the students through the 101
story for the lesson using choral reading when appropriate. Students were not provided assistance, however it was unclear if the work was being used as an assessment for this lesson. General feedback was given such as “That’s right” or “Good” without specific mention of why the answers were accurate (see Table 5). Interventionist 5. The interventionist works at an elementary school in the district with an “excellent” rating in both the absolute and growth categories for the 2014 school year. She has worked at two different schools in the district prior to her position at the current school. The interventionist teaches first, second, fourth, and fifth grade students during 30-minute periods and has an abbreviated 4-hour day. The teacher was noticeably nervous during most of the observation and she stayed close to the SmartBoard near the front of the room. She kept her teacher edition with her at all times and referred to the soft-scripted lesson frequently, as well as anchor charts that were displayed near the board. The children were seated in desks that were positioned in a large U shape in the classroom which allowed the learners to see each other clearly. This arrangement would be conducive to student collaboration and discussion, however neither strategy was used during the observation. The teacher did, at times, move to the inside of the semi-circle to assist students during the written portion of the lesson and she was liberal in her praise and specific recognition of the work the students completed correctly (see Table 5). Interventionist 6. The interventionist works at an elementary school in the district that earned an “excellent” absolute rating and a “good” growth rating during the 2014 school year. The interventionist serves first, second, and third grade students with both core replacement programs and strategic programs, as needed. The observed class 102
had a student to teacher ratio of 8:1 and according to the agenda the day of the observation was a flex day designed for students to catch up or for the interventionist to focus on skills which occurred during the last five lessons but were not yet secure. The teacher was animated throughout the lesson and smiled frequently. The lesson flowed smoothly despite the need to move students about through stations so that the teacher was able to work with a variety of student groups as needs dictated. The teacher was seated with a small group providing assistance for up to ten minutes per session. The other children were working together timing each other in fluency using passages from the program. The procedures were well established and students who were engaged in learning activities with a peer did not interrupt the teacher. At one point a pair of student did have a dispute over the activity, which included content specific materials, but the teacher was able to manage to get them back on task with a hand signal and short verbal prompt. During the teacher-led lesson, the use of advanced organizers was evident and students were given specific praise so that all children benefited from the information (see Table 5). Administrator 1. The male administrator worked in education for 28 years total with 17 years of experience as an administrator. The elementary school in which the principal currently worked during the time these data were collected earned an absolute rating of “excellent” and a “good” growth rating during the 2014 school year. Administrator 2. The elementary school where the male administrator works has earned an “excellent” absolute rating and a “good” growth rating for the 2014 school year. The male administrator has worked in education for a total of 21 years with the last 11 years being spent as an administrator in the county where these data were collected. 103
Administrator 3. The male administrator has worked in the county for a total of 15 years with eight of those years as an administrator. During the 2014 school year, the school earned an “excellent” rating in both absolute and growth categories as reported on the state report card. Administrator 4. The female administrator works in an elementary school in the county where data were collected, which earned an absolute rating of “good” and a growth rating of “below average” during the 2014 school year. She has worked in education for a total of 21 years with the last 14 years spent in the role of administration.
Research Methodology and Analysis This generic qualitative study included data collected through focus group interactions, personal interviews, and classroom observations. The generic qualitative design allowed the researcher to collect these data in a way that provided an accurate account of the day-to-day reality the participants experienced during the response to intervention process and the perception of the team members’ ability to collaborate and communicate within this process to ensure the student is supported academically as measured by adequate yearly progress. In this way, the reality that each member experienced could be constructed through the various interviews and interactions with each participant enabling the researcher to ensure an accurate portrayal of the educators’ lived experiences and the meaning each participant attributed to the experience (Merriam, 2009). These data, collected from three different events, serve as triangulation, which is an essential step in maintaining internal validity (Creswell, 2009). Individual interview 104
responses and focus group sessions were transcribed into Microsoft Word documents to which comments in the margins were added. The researcher conducted the classroom observations and noted specific occurrences of teacher assistance, student collaboration, the use of manipulatives, and instructionally effective uses of praise and recognition. In addition information on room arrangement and student-to-teacher ratios were collected and later transcribed into Microsoft Word documents. In order to address the research question, the data were organized, interpreted, analyzed, and synthesized through breaking down the larger documents into smaller relevant components. The outcome of the particular themes and patterns that emerged were synthesized in order to develop an accurate accounting of the data obtained to answer the research questions. In addition to hand coding the data, the use of a computer-assisted analysis was performed to ensure the investigations into these data were analyzed at the deepest level using the HyerRESEARCH program. Creswell (2009) describes HyperRESEARCH as an easy-to-use program that allows users to conduct analyses of the data through the program’s ability to build theories based on the researcher’s coding process. The use of the computer based program provided a visual connection between the related points within the data through the mapping tool. Participants were asked to review these data to ensure the essence of what was said was captured in the recorded findings; seven of the sixteen participants were interested in this option. The perspectives from three roles held by the interventionists, teachers, and administrators are developed to address the research question and the findings are presented through the themes and patterns revealed through these data to determine the level and opportunities for communication and collaboration
105
among the team members in the response to intervention process designed to meet the needs of struggling students. These findings are explained and discussed below. The final activity in the generic qualitative study was to compose a narrative using rich narrative text and participant comments from the interview sessions to support the findings. Creswell (2009) describes the narrative writing stage as interpretation or meaning of the data, which must be understood as the researcher’s personal interpretation including any biases, values, or personal experiences with the topic being studied.
Summary of the Findings The information presented in the findings summary is a compilation of data collected through sixteen individual interviews and two focus group sessions. Each interview was guided by a prearranged questioning route designed to reveal the participants perception of the communication and collaboration they experience while working with the response to intervention team. Clarifying questions were presented when the researcher was unsure of the exact meaning of the participants’ response and at times, some participants chose to add additional details to completely answer a particular question. The findings presented in the study represent the emerging themes and subthemes, which were identified through the use of both hand coding and computergenerated coding of recurring categories and patterns through carefully transcribed interview comments. The number of times an idea or comment was noted appears in the table below. Themes were then developed based on the recurring evidence in all three groups studied including administration, interventionists, and teachers. The following 106
information describes the outcome of the coding and emerging themes and sub-themes using these data (See Table 6).
Table 6. Occurrence of Themes by Group CODE/THEME
ADMIN
INTERVENT S
TEACHER
Collaboration Technology assisted communication Next Steps Thinking outside the box Successful outcome
10 2 4 0 7
4 5 8 5 2
19 6 11 2 7
Communication Interventionists input in meetings Lack of communication
8 4 4
2 6 4
20 2 16
Consistent model Data Collection Double/triple dipping strategies/skills Low-level support from interventionists Sharing ideas Successful academically Wants more training
7 9 1 3
10 12 0 3
21 0 4 8
3 1 0
10 9 11
4 1 5
Accountability Empathy for teacher/interventionist Considers others as equals Positive interactions Relies mainly on his/her own work Role boundaries considered Teacher supervises interventionist
8 0 2 4 0 12 3
12 2 3 6 2 2 0
8 3 11 23 5 7 0
107
As a result of the study, five themes emerged during the process of transcribing, coding, and analyzing the transcribed documents which included interviews from administrators, interviews and focus group comments from interventionists, and interviews and focus group comments from teachers. The words and phrases were coded and clustered with others which had similar relevant meaning based on the researcher’s judgment. The coded portions of the interviews were explored for commonalities, which led to overall themes that emerged from the study. The five themes that emerged in the study were: 1. Support for struggling students must be a collaborative effort. 2. Next steps for struggling students must be reached through a collaborative effort. 3. Interventionists provide valuable data through support for struggling students. 4. Support for a consistent model comes from sharing ideas. 5. Accountability for struggling students’ success is everyone’s responsibility.
Detailed Analysis Merriam (2009) writes that knowing how much data, in the form of participants’ comments or quotes, to include in the written reporting of the study data to support a theme is a judgment call. In addition, Creswell (2009) describes the interpretation of the meaning of the data as the final step in the analysis and will be found in the following section. The information will remain gender neutral due to having only one male teacher participant and one female administrator participant. The participants will be referred to as T-1 through T-6 to denote teacher participants and I-1 through I-6 to identify 108
interventionists participating. Administrators who participated in the study will be identified as A-1 through A-4. The remainder of this chapter will be organized by the research question and the theme or themes that emerged in answer to, or pertaining to, each question. RQ1: In what ways do RtI teams collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? The research question was designed to elicit a recollection of times when the teacher or interventionist was able to collaborate with a colleague to ensure students’ academic support when the child is pulled-out to a different classroom or when the interventionist pushes in to the general education classroom. Interview and focus group questions 8 and 10 were included for this purpose. This research was designed to study the collaboration efforts that exist in a large district where teachers and interventionists are provided training and research-based programs to support struggling students who are in the process of response to intervention. The types and level of collaboration among the teachers and interventionists were studied and administrator input was gathered. According to Lipson, Chomsky-Higgins, and Kanfer (2011), the RtI model was designed to reduce the number of students who may otherwise be tested to determine if a disability exists that would result in a special education label. The ability for teachers and interventionists to collaborate and communicate to ensure the success of students who were being provided specific interventions outside the general classroom or through interventions applied while the student remains inside the general classroom through coteaching by an interventionists was studied.
109
Theme 1: Support for struggling students must be a collaborative effort. Collaboration was mentioned throughout all interviews in every group and although true collaboration was the case in many instances, the actual art of collaboration in some of the discussions upon further questioning was not evident. For instance, where the school’s caseload was small, one principal explains that the committee meets at least every two weeks to discuss the struggling student. The meetings include the guidance counselor, the school psychologist, the instructional coach, the teacher and both the principal and assistant principal. While this team should be commended on the efforts of this group because as A-3 states, “That’s the one thing we are doing a good job of; we really look at the whole child for answers,” the absence of the interventionist in the list of team members should be considered. Another administrator (A-4) describes a similar committee for the data collection and review and once again the interventionist is not a part of the group. We set 10 days of classroom performance or progress or lack thereof. You find out often times that it isn’t a learning problem, it’s an attention problem, and that is obvious with the antidotal [notes the teacher keeps for the two-week period]. We see that with the data. So we have the data part and the teacher writes the summary of what she sees in the classroom and then we come together to make decisions as a committee and on the committee we have an administrator, the school psych, the teacher and the parents. And while the other two administrators discussed the importance of the interventionist and teacher to have time to “meet regularly and discuss student performance”, according to A-1 and “having ongoing collaboration to trouble-shoot any concerns” as A-2 explains, neither administrator was able to provide an example of time in the schedule that this collaborative meeting could occur.
110
It should be a non-negotiable that regular classroom and intervention teachers meet regularly to discuss student performance. Intervention teachers should be provided with opportunities to participate in common planning with regular education teachers. Intervention teachers should be knowledgeable of regular education instruction and regular education teachers should be knowledgeable of intervention programs. These teachers should also serve as partners when conferencing with parents. They should also work together to celebrate every small success a child has! (A1) Time for common planning and meeting to discuss student performance appeared in only one of the school’s master schedules of the participants in this study. Teachers and interventionists describe finding time after school when possible to have these meetings, however many interventionists work only part of the school day and leave the building before the students are dismissed. Teachers and interventionists have had to be creative in finding the time to meet. I-1 explains, “Because of the time of my classes, I am free to go to see the teachers because their break aligns with my break this year” and T-3 notes that “The interventionists I’ve worked with were always available after school. We both usually stayed really late.” In addition to the absence of all educators who work with the struggling student to be involved in the collaborative efforts, some situations were labeled as collaborative efforts, however were merely a passing comment or informational in nature. While monitoring data is an important part of determining if students are making progress, I-4 does not actually describe how the data is used through collaborative efforts to inform decisions. We look at their progress monitoring and the end-of-the-story tests and unit tests and looking down into different categories like reading comprehension and phonics and see how they are when they do the progress monitoring in their classroom and we also look at the MAP scores which is, again, only three times a year but we look to see if there is improvement and growth with what we are doing in our class. 111
In another instance during a focus group discussion about collaboration, T-2 interjects, “Some teachers get an email after each checkpoint so that we know when the interventionists are progress monitoring and giving their assessments so we know how they’re doing.” Teachers and interventionists provided examples of collaborative meetings that would not necessarily meet the criteria for collaboration, although there were also several examples of actual collaborative interactions. Examples of true collaboration exist despite the lack of scheduled time to conduct such meetings. One effective form of collaboration is described by I-3 when she explains: A lot of times we’ll meet with the teachers after school and that way we can talk without students or having to feel rushed. You know, really have conversations. It’s sitting down face-to-face; that way you can really look at what each other has and compare how [the students] are doing in the classroom to how they are doing in intervention. While teachers and interventionists are clear on the importance of true collaboration to help the struggling student bring the skills learned in the small group intervention class back to the general classroom, there is clear evidence that the interventionists feel left out of the RtI meetings where they can describe the student’s progress, data, successes, or continued struggles. For instance, I-1 explains: Where I feel the breakdown comes in is in the RtI meetings themselves. I don’t go to any of the meetings and I am not invited to any of the meetings. The only thing I have been asked for was to send work samples. This sentiment was shared by all of the participants in the interventionists’ focus group with affirmative remarks from every member. Others joined in by explaining their school’s policy on interventionists being invited to the RtI meetings.
112
Theme 2: Next steps for a struggling student must be reached through a collaborative effort. A substantial part of the collaboration data collected included conversations and team meetings to determine next steps for students in the RtI process. All but one administrator explained the process for next steps during the interview. For example, A-3 said, “As it progresses it becomes a team meeting to determine their next steps” and another principal A-4 explains: Sometimes it is just a motivation problem so when they get to the small group, they are the top of the class and we see they are participating in the small group. Then we talk to the teacher and see if they are consistently doing better in the classroom and if the progress monitoring supports the growth and if the MAP score is much higher than the last score, we have a conversation with the student and their parents with the team about reducing services. We make it a positive thing. When explaining the school’s system A-1 answered, “When teachers and interventionists feel the student is making progress, they should contact the RtI coordinator in their building to share universal screening information and develop recommendations or next steps for the student. Again, there is no evidence that a mutual time exists in the schedule for this collaboration. An idea regarding next steps is contributed by I-3 explaining that outside services may need to screen the student for a possible language processing delay if the student continues to struggle with comprehension. Using resources in the data team meetings are always an option if the general course of remediation is not producing results after a period of time. Data continues to drive the team meeting decisions in all of the schools represented as I-2 states: As new decisions are made for that child we continue to progress monitor the areas of concern and then that information is recorded in a graph and also 113
communicated with each progress monitoring to the general education teacher and the psychologist. By contrast, I-6 wishes for input in addition to the data she is asked to provide for the log as she explains: There are some students that are in my groups that I feel like I’m doing the best I can but they are just not grasping what I’m trying to teach. And I feel that if I did have some say that I could get them further along to where that student needs to be with something other than what I’m doing for them because it isn’t really working. Although most interventionists explain the schools’ system for team meetings to assist children who are still not making progress even with the interventions in place, all interventionists nodded their heads or uttered affirming comments when I-6 shared. Teachers were able to provide specific instances of being personally involved and five out of six teachers explained the process during the focus group meeting. For example, T-3 discussed: Administration and a group of teachers meet every other month to discuss any students that we feel are not doing well academically. We then discuss the steps we are to take and if students are doing well or if they are still performing poorly. We normally look at both MAP and class work to decide whether they should stay in or be released back into the classroom for that time period. While a team is convened to decide the next steps for students in T-3’s school, the interventionist is not a part of the meeting due to scheduling issues. By contrast, three teacher participants explained that, “We try to meet with our interventionist at least once every two weeks to go over any progress monitoring that they might have done in their class and our scores from our class” and T-1 agreed: I agree with both. When both the interventionists and I keep the records it is so much easier to sit down with the parents and even with other people at our school, administration, so forth, to really discuss what is going on with the child 114
and have both of our opinions out there. We talk about what steps need to be taken next or what we see going on with that student in either class. And as T-4 explained, “Not only bringing that student to our data team with evidence to show how the student was performing and what help they needed, but also supplementing when necessary” or as T-2 mentioned, “Students were monitored under the RtI program, and services were adjusted throughout the year based on student performance.” It is clear that making decisions about next steps for the students was done so using a team model approach in each school despite the lack of time set aside for the meetings. RQ2: In what ways do RtI teams communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? The research question was designed to illicit responses from participants concerning events where they were involved in communicating with the team members to promote a successful outcome for the struggling learner. Research questions 3, 4, and 9 were designed to prompt a recall of the situations where students would be encouraged to transfer learning and strategies practiced from one classroom to another. Information that would be essential to share concerns a students’ educational plan and any support already provided either inside the general classroom or with the interventionist in a separate classroom. Data collection and next steps decisions are the concern of the entire team and the expectation of gathering data and sharing results in a timely and scheduled manner is mandated through the school district. Researched-based and normed referenced test scores will indicate the success of the intervention program and the students’ progress through antidotal notes and classroom tests from all teachers should be presented and considered before making critical decisions about a child’s placement. 115
Theme 3: Interventionists and teachers communicate valuable data to the team to monitor the progress of struggling students. Having current data to make educational decisions is essential and mandatory in the school district where the data for this study were collected. The district office provides guidance on classes and programs through the tiered model: Tier I, or core classes are designed and appropriate for student scoring above the 25th percentile on the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) testing, which is the universal screening assessment for elementary schools in the district. Tier II programs are effective for student scoring between the 11th and 25th percentile, and Tier III programs are again delineated into Tier IIIA and Tier IIIB to provide additional guidance for assigning appropriate programs to support struggling students once identified as a student with a disability through the RtI process and through additional testing. Just how the information is communicated varies from school to school but it is clear that technology is playing a wider role in keeping all team members informed of changes in student’s needs and upcoming meetings. One resource that most schools utilize is the lead interventionist’s position and all four administrators commented on the usefulness and versatility of the person in this position from training interventionists to disseminating information. In at least one building the administrator is concerned that the information shared is accessible to all when A-4 explains, “Typically the lead interventionist comes to common planning and staff development. She has two certified teachers and one aid; if they can’t come to staff development, she presents it to them.” Another administrator (A-1) discusses the need for sharing information in this way: Both the regular classroom teacher and interventionist are integral players in the success of struggling students. They both participate in the RTI process. It is important that they communicate regularly so both teachers use progress 116
monitoring information to provide strategic and intentional small group instruction in both the regular and intervention classrooms. It is also important that parents see both intervention and regular classroom teachers as integral parts of the teaching team and that three-way communication between these individuals is clear. While as A-1 explains, the ideal situation would be for all interventionists to be present at meetings or to have a scheduled time to discuss a struggling learner’s progress, A-2 points out a very common concern, “We invite our lead interventionist to the RtI meetings, but often the interventionists themselves don’t get to come.” The interventionist being able to attend the RtI meetings was important to each administrator; however, no evidence was found that shows interventionists are part of the team. A comment made by I-1 describes the benefits of housing a lead interventionist in the building by the following comment: In our building the lead interventionists has a schedule that actually allows that person to go out and be in the room with the interventionists that are not trained teachers and give the one-on-one help and be there when they are teaching and meet their needs. Each principal who has a large number of intervention students is budgeted for a lead interventionist at the district level. The use of the lead interventionist for training and support for new teachers or paraprofessionals was described by the intervention focus group as most effective. Based on the comment, it was understood that the support of the lead interventionist was indispensible, however the interventionists were in agreement that the lead interventionist should not take the place of the interventionists being a part of the RtI or data team meetings. The sentiment was recurring with I-5 sharing this viewpoint, “I wish we were given the ability to have more input” and I-6 agreed and elaborated, “I feel that if I did 117
have some say that I could get them further along to where that student needs to be.” The group shared this feeling with additional affirmative nods and mummers. This prompted I-1 to share the following memory: I also tried to send updates [to teachers], not that regularly, but you know, letting them know the same thing – what they are doing real well in and the areas they are struggling with. I haven’t really gotten much feedback except that they appreciate the information; but as far as collaborating with the teacher to come up with a different solution or plan, that really hasn’t been…I haven’t found that to be the case with many of the teachers I have been communicating with, as far as them making suggestions on how I can do things differently. I tried that my first year, but it didn’t seem to last so I abandoned the idea. While the discussion was lively when questioned about attending meetings and having more time to communicate and collaborate with classroom teachers, the interventionists were quick to add justifying comments such as, “But then again, I may not have asked as often as I needed to either” from I-5 or “What they do might not work for us just because it’s a different environment” and “It’s got to be hard coming up with that many schedules” as explained by I-3. For many of the participants in the interventionists focus group justifying why something is not ideal seemed to be common. The need to justify other’s actions was also evident in the teacher’s focus group as well. One teacher explains, “Most of the time when I speak to interventionists we both do what we can to assist the child, but sometimes there is only so much time in the day.” It also appeared that the teachers were able to recall more occasions when interventionists were helpful in sharing information about struggling students. However when asked to present examples of communication or collaboration, the teachers were most likely to provide ways in which the interventionist assisted by reviewing, providing more time or oral administration of a test, or finishing an assignment with support. 118
The examples given by teachers did not include times of collaboration to encourage the students to continue using the strategies he or she were learning in the intervention class. Instead, examples included from T-3, “I had a student earlier on in the year that needed more help with decimals. The intervention teacher worked with the student specifically on that skill and on the next assessment that student made an A” and T-6 describes, “They [interventionists] have also been very supportive, like if I have a child who can’t finish a test they help them with the test when they come to their class”. In addition, teachers have noted the interventionists “were helpful with modifying student tests” (T-4) and “giving them [students] extra time to complete assignments” (T-1). RQ3: In what ways do RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another? All educators who participated in the study were assigned the pullout model and specific programs for the intervention period. In this case, the need to support the learner as he or she transfers the learning from one situation to another is most critical. As presented earlier, there are positive and negative repercussions to both the pullout and push-in method of supporting struggling learners with an interventionist or teacher providing instruction. As Gelzheiser, Meyers, and Pruzek (1992) revealed in a study of both service models, it is not so much the method but the interaction of the two educators which provided the positive impact on the students’ achievements. Research questions 2 and 5 were designed to prompt discussion about the support the struggling student is provided to ensure learning is transferred from the interventionists’ classroom to the general curriculum when necessary. 119
Theme 4: Support for a consistent model comes from sharing ideas. Ideas and strategies that help the struggling student should be carried over when the student is removed from the general classroom to receive intervention. Helping students to make the connection to other areas, both academically and in real-world situations, will increase the success of the student and allow for catch-up growth. The need for a consistent model is evident in the comment A-4 made: Interventionists are required to develop a newsletter every week that goes home to the parents. They also give a copy to the teacher so the teacher has the information about what strategies they are working on each week so she can supplement in the classroom in small group. All administrator participants require the general education teacher to meet with the students who go out to intervention in a small group setting at least three times per week. Another administrator (A-1) noted, “It is important that they communicate regularly so both teachers can provide complimentary modifications/accommodations in instruction as needed.” In agreement, A-2 shares, “It is also important that both teachers are aware of current small group, individual and whole class instruction so that they are strategic in complimenting/supplementing that instruction in all instructional settings.” Each administrators interviewed explained the importance of both the interventionist and the teacher knowing what the other was doing in their classrooms and felt it was a necessary part of supporting struggling students in the process of RtI. One interventionist (I-3) described, “I have talked to the teachers about ways we can encourage the students to participate and be confident enough to join in with the class and applying the strategies we are learning in our small-group intervention class,” as well as I-1 who reports: 120
The educators in our building are very willing to do whatever it takes for the child to succeed. And if we have an intervention that we are doing in our room and we share that then they are willing to try that as well. Interventionists and teachers reported that this was an important step in being able to compliment the other’s work, and there was evidence of teachers holding small group instruction with some focus on matching the other educator’s strategies. For example, T4 states: It’s nice to keep a checkpoint and know what they’re doing and to know exactly in the program when that shift goes from being very phonetically based to more comprehension so your instruction in the classroom can shift that way, too. However other than the two interventionists and one teacher reported above, there was little evidence that this was occurring during the school day, due mostly in part to the schedules and time constraints each had to work within. One teacher (T-3) shared why she felt more communication between teachers and interventionists was necessary: Because you would be sure what exactly they are doing when they’re in their reading or math class and how that compares to what you are working on in your classroom setting. You might be doing something completely different and then you would know how to follow up with it or vise-versa. While all participants supported the idea of sharing or transferring strategies, no plan for ensuring time and resources were available to assist educators with this effort was evident. RQ4: In what ways do the RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team? Research questions 6 and 7 were included to prompt a discussion of the educators’ concerns or encouragements within the organizational role each holds. Members of organizations can be viewed as evaluators or managers of other groups 121
within the corporation and feelings of superiority or inferiority may exist. The research question is designed to help the researcher understand the position or roles each participant holds and determine the types of interactions, presence or lack of equality, or accountability felt by both the teacher and interventionist. These basic drives are of concern if they are causing tension among educators who work with the same students as Barth (2006) who writes that more than anything else, the interactions of the school’s educators has the ability to control the outcomes of student achievement. The effectiveness of teacher and interventionist communication is in part controlled by the role the adult holds within the organization. Theme 5: Accountability for struggling students’ success is everyone’s responsibility. During the interview process, the subject of accountability permeated most of the responses at some time. It is understandable with today’s focus on test scores and state’s stringent accountability measures that this would be a recurring theme. Administrators consider funding and budget allocations carefully to create a comprehensive support network for all learners and concentrate available resources to meet at least the minimum state requirements to support struggling students. One administrator (A-3) describes the responsibility one has to be aware of the needs of those struggling, “That’s where you have to be hands-on because you have a thumb on the pulse of the school when you keep your focus on the data.” And another principal (A-2) shares: The RTI process has become a process that truly identifies students, provides the most effective research-based supports, progress monitors often and modifies instruction/grouping fluidly based on that progress monitoring. We find that we are able to provide enough accelerated support for students that fewer and fewer students are actually qualifying for special education services. 122
Another administrator (A-1) notes, “There are some children that are just able to catch up with interventions and reach grade-level standards or beyond with the extra support.” Interventionists struggle with appearing to ask too many questions as I-2 mentions during the focus group discussion when questioning if the student was placed in the correct group because the child was unable to keep up, “When the teacher says there’s really not another step to take, you know I just need to push my sleeves up and work harder at working with her [the student].” The interventionists who participated agreed that they felt the pressure to have the students’ test scores improve and general classroom performance to be strengthened. Several comments were made when the discussion topic was considered, such as I-5 explaining her struggle: We have the curriculum coaches sitting down with us, and they were just like, this is the teacher’s responsibility and this is your responsibility. This is what we are looking for you to do. This is the program you use to do it. I just think it was hard to throw all that at us at once. At some points, interventionists explained the confinements of the programs they are required to teach and on other occasions, expressed a need to have a researched-based curriculum as I-6 explains, “We were given a math pacing guide and a core curriculum and we were told this is what you are doing with them. It’s almost like we are a tutor in math and not a curriculum in math.” Interventionists are often working with students who placed in a particular program based on test score data but the program often falls short of meeting the individual need. This discussion was prompted by I-2 during the focus group discussion: For example, if you are using a Tier II Passport style program – perhaps the child needs help on multisyllabic words, but that’s not where you are in the program at that moment and so if that’s the child’s only intervention program then 123
they are not going to show progress. I don’t feel like it’s an accurate indication of whether the child can learn that information, it’s whether or not it is being presented, so instead I feel like providing time or an intervention that’s at a level that is individualized for that particular child would definitely give more accurate data as to whether or not that child has a learning disability or some other disability. Placing accountability for student growth on educators continues to be a major concern for both interventionists and classroom teachers. During a discussion among the teachers in the focus group, T-1 shares: Honestly, it depends. If I never see the child for a certain subject, I find it difficult to be held accountable for something I have not taught them. But if I have them for anytime during the day for that subject, then I am just as responsible for their scores as any other teacher. One teacher (T-5) who has children leave for the entire class period described having to send students to another teacher for intervention as “a bit scary” because “Not all teachers feel the same way, so it was difficult for me to put my students in the hands of another.” However, due to preliminary high test scores, the teacher reports: We all work hard and are committed to helping students learn. I understand that the student was struggling in the conventional classroom setting and would continue to struggle if the interventions weren't put in place. If the student wasn't making gains with the interventions, then I would be less comfortable with being held accountable. Another teacher (T-6) shared a similar concern, “At one point, I had three students that were pulled out for intervention all day, with the exception of lunch and recess, yet I was accountable for their progress,” while another teacher (T-4) who has found successful outcomes for the students explains, “It is a little nerve racking, but I trust that we are all doing what is best for the student, and the student's test scores would not be as high as they were without the RtI team and interventions.”
124
Chapter 4 Summary Six teachers, six interventionists, and four administrators participated in this research study. The purpose of the basic qualitative study was to explore the lived experiences of working with struggling student who were assigned intervention based on the RtI process. The experiences of each of the participants were examined through focus group discussions, individual interviews, and classroom visits to determine the level and types of collaboration and communication each engages in to ensure the success of the struggling student in a large South Carolina public school district. The qualitative method of research was used to gain insight into the experiences, reactions, and emotions associated with his or her experiences to determine effective processes in providing support to struggling learners when more than one educator provides educational services. As is the case with most qualitative research, participants’ quotes were used to build confidence for the reader by accurately representing the reality of the participants (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). The main research question guiding this qualitative study is, in what ways do teachers, interventionists, and administrators interact and communicate to support the academic success of at-risk learners? The focus group sessions were conducted using a questioning route and the questions were designed to keep the group conversation and focus on communication and collaboration of teachers and interventionists when a struggling student has been identified through the RtI process. Focus group comments and individual interview questions used to answer the primary research question were sorted and themes and repeated ideas were categorized. The following questions were used to answer specific research questions: 125
•
Focus group questions 8 and 10 and administrators’ individual interview questions 4 and 8 were used to answer the first research question
•
Focus group questions 3, 4 and 9 and administrators’ individual interview question 5 were used to answer the second research question
•
Focus group questions 2 and 5 and administrators’ individual interview question 7 were used to answer the third research question
•
Focus group questions 6 and 7 and administrators’ individual interview questions 6 and 9 were used to answer the fourth research question
The finding show that all participants view collaboration and communication as valuable and essential practices in the educational setting to support struggling learners, however not a great deal of evidence shows that time is built into the schedule for these practices to be carried out. Teachers and interventionists feel they are viewed as valuable and instrumental in helping struggling students gain accelerated growth, however interventionists were frequently not an integral part of the RtI team. Where a consistent model is viewed as important to students’ academic growth, some interventionists and teachers were able to provide specific examples and relate the practice to student achievement. When considering the role each participant plays in the larger picture of the elementary school as an organization, teachers and interventionists were able to empathize with one another and find ways to justify any difficulties one may have experienced, while being responsible for student growth. Chapter 4 presented findings based on the research questions where themes and categories were found during the analysis of the interview and focus group responses. Generally the experiences of the teacher, interventionists, and administrators represented 126
a genuine desire to be proactive and involved with each students’ learning struggles and needs, however the time and resources available to meet these goals fall short of providing the necessary means to manage explicit collaboration and communication among teachers and interventionists. As the struggling student navigates through his educational experience with multiple teachers and settings, little is being done to help the student recall and use strategies practiced in the intervention classroom. This chapter provided a summary of the finding of the research study and this information will be elaborated upon, along with conclusions and recommendations for future research, which will be outlined in Chapter 5.
127
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the how the role of administrators, interventionists, and teachers determines the effectiveness of collaboration and communication among the team of educators who work with at-risk students through response to intervention. The generic qualitative study provided a platform to understand the lived experiences of the participants framed through focus group interactions, personal individual interviews, classroom observations, and documents provided by participants. Participants in the study included four administrators, six classroom teachers, and six interventionists from 14 elementary schools in a large South Carolina public school district. The central research question was supported by four sub-questions, with questions one and two specifically designed to illicit responses and experiences of participants in relation to the amount and types of collaboration and communication each experienced while working with a student in the RtI program. Sub-question three provided an opportunity for participants to elaborate on his or her experiences in delivering a consistent model for students who are provided services in multiple classrooms. Subquestion four provided participants an opportunity to discuss any variance within the interactions he or she may have experienced based of the individual’s role in the organization. The generic qualitative design used for this study provided an opportunity 128
to collect data through avenues, which allowed participants to provide an accurate account of the day-to-day reality each experience in parallel work to support struggling students. The questioning route provided a guide for the researcher while allowing the participants to elaborate on open-ended questions to fully explain the lived experiences and to provide a deeper perspective on the experience. The organization of Chapter 5, the final chapter of the dissertation, will summarize the findings of the study presented sequentially by each research sub-question and discuss the findings in relation to the literature. In addition, the limitations of the study will be included, as well as recommendations for further research and a final summary of the answers to the research question.
Summary of the Findings The primary research question guiding the focus of the study was, to what extent does collaboration and communication among educators who work with at-risk students impact the support necessary to ensure the student makes adequate yearly progress in the elementary school setting. Four sub questions were presented to the participants to fully answer the central question. Sub-question 1: In what ways do RtI tem members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? Sub-question 2: In what ways do RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress?
129
Sub-question 3: In what ways do RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another? Sub-question 4: In what ways do the RtI team members’ organizational roles within the school affect the communication efforts of the team? Sub-question 1 In what ways do RtI tem members collaborate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? The first research question was answered by focus group participants and through personal interviews using questions 8 and 10 of the questioning route and individual interview questions 4 and 8, which resulted in two major themes. The first theme that emerged was the need for a collaborative effort when supporting struggling students. Each group, administrators, interventionists, and teachers, stated a strong need for input from multiple sources when making decisions and considering next steps for struggling learners. Exactly who is included in the discussions and to what extent the educator group was provided an opportunity to participate in the instances of collaboration differed. Administrators discussed the need for the lead interventionist to collect data that would be accessed during periods of collaboration, however only teachers were consistently invited to RtI meetings. During this questioning route, many teachers described interventionists as being helpful with tasks such as providing additional time for a student who needed extra time on an assignment or to finish a test, have a test read orally to a student, or to modify tests and assignments, or receiving an email with benchmark data as collaborative 130
opportunities. Each teacher recalled sending email or meeting with the interventionists in the hallway between classes or stopping to chat briefly at the end of the day or staying late to discuss a student. Teachers also report sharing data with the interventionist to track struggling students’ benchmark and probe data. Focus group interactions with interventionists produced similar comments about how each collaborated with teachers and felt the teachers they worked with were willing to find time to discuss their students’ progress, however at times this proved difficult because some interventionists did not work a full day and were often gone before the students’ day ended. Interventionists expressed a desire to provide input about the child’s real-time success and struggle in the intervention class, however only one educator in the interventionist group was asked for antidotal data to be shared with the team for decisionmaking purposes. No other educator in the group reported ever being approached to give an account, either written or in person, of a students’ progress in the interventionists’ classroom. The second major theme that emerged from this questioning route was that next steps for the struggling student must be reached through a collaborative effort. Administrators discussed the need for giving children time in intervention and small group settings to determine the actual needs of the student. One administrator describes children who may lack the concentration in a larger group to be successful. Once the interventionist reports progress, the decision for next steps can be made with parents involved. In this case, as well, the interventionist is not usually a part of these meetings. In addition, each administrator described a structured and systematic data-driven approach to the data collection, RtI meeting attendees and timelines, where to go for 131
answers to questions, and expectations of teachers and interventionists collaborating to ensure the success of the struggling student. Two administrators describe being part of the decision making effort by tracking test and benchmark data for students being served through intervention, however no administrator expressed being involved at each step in the process. Interventionists were able to describe the expectation each has to collect benchmark and probe data to provide evidence of progress or continued struggles in the intervention course. While this information is entered into a program that can be accessed by the RtI team to help with next steps decision-making, the interventionist group continues to ask to be included in the meetings so that they can give first-hand information about the student’s progress. Teachers provided examples of opportunities to discuss struggling students’ progress in common planning meetings, which occur every two weeks, however the interventionists are not included in these meetings, due most often to scheduling concerns. One teacher did share that she was able to sit down with the interventionists and the parents of a struggling learner in her class and describes the positive outcome, which she attributed to the interventionists providing supporting data to help make decisions for next steps with the child. Each school described a team approach to decision making with clear parameters for the meeting protocol. Sub-question 2 In what ways do RtI team members communicate to support student success to meet adequate yearly progress? The second research question was answered by focus group questions 3, 4, and 9 and personal administrators’ interview question 5. The theme that emerged from this 132
questioning route was that interventionists and teachers communicate valuable data to the team to monitor the progress of struggling students. This question prompted each administrator to explain the lead interventionist’s duties in the RtI process. The administrators rely heavily on the lead interventionist having knowledge of each program and to be able to present student data and progress within the program during the RtI meeting. In addition, several administrators explained that the lead interventionist is responsible to attend staff development and common planning and share the information with the interventionists, as they are not able to attend the training or weekly informational meetings. Although no mention was made to having the actual intervention teacher attend the RtI meeting, the administrator expressed full confidence in the lead interventionists being capable of managing any questions that arise concerning a particular student. One administrator expressed the importance of parents seeing both the interventionists and the classroom teacher as part of the teaching team. Interventionists also describe the lead interventionists as a valuable asset and count on the person in that role to provide support with training, modeling, and program support. The interventionists agree that the lead interventionists is knowledgeable about each students’ test score data but feel the personal input each could provide about student progress in the intervention classroom would be equally valuable. While interventionists were expressing concerns they were equally as likely to justify the actions of teachers and administrators citing scheduling concerns, teachers having to deal with larger class sizes, and not asking for help as often as they should. One interventionist shared the use of written communication about the struggling student but found that teachers were unable or did not care to respond back and so abandoned the idea the following year. 133
Teachers reported communication with interventionists, however all but a few examples described low-level support such as allowing the student to complete a test or assignment in the interventionists’ classroom, orally reading material to struggling readers, and asking for assignments or tests to be modified to meet the needs of the student as opposed to sharing communication that would assist the other to closely align the work in both classrooms and finding ways to support the student by complimenting or supplementing each other’s work. The teachers reported the interventionists’ willingness to help and agreed that each educator was working with the best interest for the student in mind. In addition to the help the extension to the interventionists classroom provides to the general education teacher, one teacher reported asking the interventionist to work on a specific skill in mathematics and shared that the student was able to make a high mark on the assessment of that skill. Sub-question 3 In what ways do RtI team members interact to provide a consistent model of targeted instructional strategies in multiple classrooms if the student moves from one classroom to another? The third research question was answered by focus group questions 2 and 5 and personal administrators’ interview question 7. The theme that emerged from this questioning route was support for a consistent model comes from sharing ideas. This question prompted one administrator to describe the expectation for every interventionist to produce a weekly newsletter designed to inform both parents and teacher of the strategies the students are learning through the intervention program. Two other administrators supported this comment describing similar expectations in their buildings 134
by suggesting teachers and interventionists are meeting weekly to share ideas and stay aware of the others’ work so that strategies and skills can be focused on in both classrooms. While this type of collaboration would ensure a consistent model for the struggling student, there was no indication that administrators provided the time or resources for teachers and interventionists to have an opportunity to work together at this level. Interventionists were able to describe incidents where they shared information with the teachers that would promote student success in the general classroom. One instance an interventionist shared was providing the teacher with ways to encourage the struggling student to participate and gain the confidence to excel in the general classroom. Another interventionist described providing the teacher with ideas, but was unsure if the teacher tried the strategies. Both interventionists and teachers described finding a short amount of time in the school day to discuss concerns or accomplishments for the students they share, but most educators relied on email communication as a way to share relevant information so that the other teacher would be able to access the material when he or she had time. Teachers were also able to describe reaching out to the interventionist, one in particular commented that she called the other at 11:30 PM since it was earlier established that they both worked late into the night. All teachers shared positive comments during this questioning route about receiving data and information concerning their students who are served by interventionists. One teacher was able to describe using the checkpoint data to monitor when the student was able to shift to more difficult material and match the comprehension strategies in the general education classroom, 135
however this was not the case with the majority of the teachers. This comment prompted teachers in the focus group to share how they would use the information if they knew exactly what the students were exposed to in the intervention classroom. One teacher commented that perhaps a teacher would do something completely different or at the least, follow up with the strategy in the small group setting in the general classroom. Sub-question 4 In what ways do the RtI team members’ organizational role within the school affect the communication efforts of the team? The fourth research question was answered by focus group questions 6 and 7 and personal administrators’ interview question 6 and 9. The theme that emerged from this questioning route was accountability for struggling students’ success is everyone’s responsibility. These questions prompted all administrators to explain the struggles of meeting all learners’ needs with limited funding and several administrators provided an extensive description of how he or she allocated the funding for the current school year. Along with ensuring adequate resources and personnel to serve the population of struggling learners, all administrators explained the need to continually monitor the data and to be able to spot potential problems when students are not being served in the most effective programs. Several administrators explained the changes each has experienced in identifying and serving the disabled population and all administrators describe the current method through RtI as the most strategic and researched-based thorough progress monitoring so that more students are able to receive intervention early on so that the special education label can be avoided when possible. Each administrator shared instances where the student was able to return to the general classroom after receiving 136
intervention; credit was given to the ability to serve the student with research-based programs and additional time in small groups with direct instruction through intervention. The questioning route also prompted the interventionist group to discuss data and accountability from their perspective, which differed from the administrator group. The interventionists described feeling pressure for student to improve benchmark and probe scores, which are monitored at both the school level and the district level, as well as feeling responsible for students to improve in their general classroom performance. One interventionist described the curriculum [instructional] coach presenting the programs the educator was expected to use and described a feeling of being overwhelmed with the information and expectations. While the programs are provided from the district level, at least one interventionist described feeling that the programs are only issued for English language arts and the interventionists are expected to develop a plan for math that aligns with the pacing guide issued for each grade level. The interventionist describes children from several classrooms coming to the class at different points in the program and defining herself as a tutor instead of providing sound instruction through a research-based program. Although, as the interventionist stated, there is a program for ELA, another interventionist describes the program as not meeting the needs of the wide range of student’ abilities she finds in her classroom. Test data and student achievement is important to the interventionists who participated in this study, but each member felt some level of stress to ensure students are making progress toward their goals. Teachers report feeling this same pressure, however, veteran teachers have become used to the increased level of accountability, which began when state standards were introduced. The questioning route prompted teachers to discuss being accountable 137
for students who are not with them in the general classroom and are pulled out to receive intervention. For a few of the teachers, one or more of their students may be out of the room during the entire period and the teacher may not provide instruction for the child but is still accountable for the academic growth of the struggling learner. Two teachers shared their ability to feel more at ease after seeing preliminary test scores and finding the students who are out of the classroom were able to meet the MAP growth targets for the winter and spring tests. Teachers were in agreement that interventionists are doing what is best for students and all educators involved are doing all they can to provide each student with sound instruction and an instructional plan that best suits his or her individual needs; unfortunately a few children, who are not improving through RtI, will be considered for special education classes.
Discussion of the Findings This section of the final chapter in the dissertation will provide an interpretation of the findings of this study, will address the meaning of the findings, and will include a discussion of the finding in terms of the researcher’s experiences. The participant groups in the study each hold unique positions in the organization and are trained through the central office to carry out the work of supporting struggling learners through the response to intervention model. The sample contained administrators who hold high expectations for all members of the organization. In order to adequately serve the struggling population of students, administrators expected teachers and interventionists to work as a collaborative team and coordinate the educational experiences for the struggling learner in order to effectively provide complimenting instruction so that the student would be 138
repeatedly exposed to skills and concepts in a variety of settings. This model reflects best practice in education and would provide the struggling learner with an effective learning continuum that would afford the extra practice to produce accelerated catch-up growth necessary to return the student to the general curriculum. As instructional leaders, administrators are instrumental in providing a common time in the schedule for collaboration and communication among teachers and interventionist necessary to consistently develop these types of lessons and coordinated instruction. While all teachers and interventionists involved in the study agreed with the need to support one another to provide a consistent model and determine next steps in a student’s educational plan, each was required to find a way to accomplish this task without direction from administrators to develop scheduled times to meet or common planning periods. This finding leads the researcher to conclude that educators are dedicated in their work and will find a way to support students to ensure the greatest level of achievement possible. Education as a field requires those who work with students to be passionate about student success and hold high expectations for even the most challenged learner. Dedication is an essential trait that pushes educators to transcend barriers to do what is right for children and is mandatory when working in a profession that shapes young lives. The findings in this study showed a difference between the administrators’ opinion about interventionists being involved in RtI meetings where student data is reviewed and next steps decided upon, and the interventionists’ opinion. Interventionists overwhelmingly expressed a desire to provide input about the child’s progress in the intervention class during RtI meetings, however all administrators in the study were 139
satisfied with the lead interventionist attending the meeting and sharing the information about the student’s progress. This difference of opinion in the value of the interventionists’ involvement in a crucial decision-making meeting makes a substantial impact on their experience and perception of the field of education. The findings in the study also indicated a discrepancy between the theoretical definition of collaboration among educators and how teachers viewed their role in collaboration with their colleagues. In principle, teachers participating in the study described collaboration, by their actions, a matter of convenience or giving low-level direction or tasks to those with whom they work. Interventionists in this study, trained to provide the support a struggling student needs, are eager to help with these tasks despite the demand it places on the time they are allotted to spend with the student to deliver the instruction based on the program each requires. Teacher participants responded with an emphasis placed on collaboration, however most examples provided did not require consensus or cooperation. Interestingly, the findings in the study indicated that both teachers and interventionists were concerned about accountability and no participant made excuses or placed the responsibility on another group. In contrast, both teachers and interventionists were able to empathize with the other and realize the struggles the other is facing with the work they are required to manage. The interventionist group expressed feeling adequately trained for the position after the initial learning curve with programs passed. In an era of high-stakes testing, participants focused on the successes they experienced and the positive results of student successes. In addition, most participants expressed
140
feeling supported by administration and those they work closely with to support struggling students.
Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the Literature Researchers have examined a wide range of data to discuss the response to intervention process and effectiveness, and the discussion of the findings in this study will be interpreted with a focus on the research of these scholars. The findings of the study will be discussed within the theoretical framework of collaboration and communication within a social organization exploring the role model, which formed the basis for this research. The connection to the literature review explored in Chapter 2 will link the findings in this study with that of previous research to extend the existing theory within this context. Relationship between the Findings and the Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework of collaboration and communication among educators who work with struggling students through the response to intervention model and the role the professional holds within the organization team who make decisions about the students’ educational path through a team approach was the basis upon which these findings were built. According to Singh (2012) the need for an effective networking culture that is supported by a shared leadership and a reciprocal relationship is essential to build trust among those with whom one works. Administrators, interventionists, and teachers alike described the need for this type of collaboration to provide an effective model where children are given assistance to determine if the intervention is able to support the student enough to produce the progress necessary to return the child to the 141
general classroom or to move to more intensive support structures through special education avenues. The need for ongoing staff development that leads to a greater capacity for professional collaboration and communication in order to produce more effective and efficient work that focuses on sharing the responsibility for improving student achievement is necessary (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). The findings in this research shows the district is providing many opportunities for professional growth and development, however only the lead interventionist is invited to attend meetings with the understanding that the person in that position shares the information with the interventionists who do not attend. No participant in the interventionists group was able to recall specific information from staff development at the school level being shared. Barth (2006) writes about the impact the interaction of the adults in the school has to control outcomes in terms of student achievement and the structured system of RtI enhancing the ability to provide assistance to struggling students. The findings from the focus group interactions show several interventionists were able to explain initial training provided by the instructional coach and ongoing support in the classroom, such as modeling lessons and classroom observation feedback. According to the organization role theory, Olsen and Near (1994) describe ways to predict and analyze human behavior of specific situations and Spillan, Mino, and Rowles (2002) define the differences between peer to peer relationships and subordinate and supervisor roles. The findings in this study show both the teachers and interventionists seek both assistance and provide information to each other at roughly the same rate; however, the interventionists are more likely to communicate and collaborate 142
with the teacher concerning higher-level problem solving issues, such as sharing strategies or tips to help the student participate in the larger group or keeping the teacher apprised of the skills and concepts the student is learning in the intervention classroom than vice-versa. Teacher responses only provided examples of asking the interventionist to provide the student with more time for an assignment or test, or to help the student with a specific need. This disconnect may be occurring because of a lack of understanding as Beehr (1981) and Helterbran (2010) discuss in their research: For an organization to function effectively and efficiently, all members of the organization must understand the role he or she plays within the organization and that this information must be communicated and accepted by each employee. Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the Literature Despite the fact that collaboration and communication was highly valued among the groups, there was no indication that time was available for the educators to develop these connections. Several studies presented in Chapter 2 support the necessity of dialogue between the educators to be reflective through meaningful conversation, focused on student motivation, and coordinated among the homeroom teacher and interventionists (Fisher & Fry, 2008; Loera et al., 2013; Shanahan, 2008). The findings from the data collected show that although the teachers most often find quick minutes to connect with one another, it is more likely to occur through email or a shared drive with test data or to merely ask or offer assistance with task-oriented needs such as oral administration of tests or modifying assignments instead of problem-solving collaboration or reflective dialogue.
143
The RtI model is now widely used; however success among schools varies (Reeves, Bishop, & Filce, 2010; Moors, Weisenburgh-Snyder, & Robbins, 2010; Palenchar & Boyer, 2008). Ritchey, Silverman, Montanaro, Speece, and Schatschneider (2012) write that upper elementary students continue to read far below grade level and remediation in vocabulary and comprehension instruction has not been the focus of Tier II intervention. The findings in the study show that the lack of ongoing communication that is reciprocal in nature among the teachers and interventionists is not occurring. The need to provide the students with support that can bridge the gap between the intervention classroom and the general classroom is critical where the students no longer learn to read but read to learn (Ritchey et al., 2012). While the need to support each other in day-to-day tasks when necessary, Calabrese (2002) writes that the transformational leader is responsible for affecting the climate and culture of the school to promote functioning models of communication. Based on the data collected, the administration is aware of the essential need for the two groups to meet and discuss the next steps for the struggling learner, however the structure of the two group’s schedules is not conducive to meet these needs. Gaps in communication exist in every level of the organization (Spillan, Mino, & Rowles, 2002). The findings also show that while the administrators rely on the classroom teacher and the lead interventionists to provide the student data and information necessary to make next steps decisions with the RtI team, the interventionists feel their personal input about the student’s progress inside the classroom is needed. In addition, the work of Spillan, Mino, and Rowles (2002) write that when a highpressure environment exists, fewer positive peer relationships exist than those that work 144
in environments where every employee is perceived as a valued member and celebrate the efforts of all employees at every level of the organization. Based on the repeated desire of interventionists to be present at team meetings, the findings show that the level of trust and valued input is diminished. At the time of these data being collected, the push-in model was not considered due to the fact that all of the participants used the pullout model and had only indirect knowledge of those working with students by the interventionist pushing into the classroom. Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas (2002) explain that no matter the delivery model, the need for teachers to communicate and collaborate exists and based on their research, all students and teachers to be held to high standards. Based on the findings of the research for this study, the lack of communication or collaboration experienced did not prove to be overwhelmingly detrimental. All teachers, interventionists, and administrators provided a multitude of examples that showed successful outcomes for struggling students. This is not to diminish the concerns and desire for increased communication and collaboration both teachers and interventionists have to improve their craft and add to the successes they were already experiencing.
Limitations The following limitations were found to be evident in the study: 1. The number of participants provided an adequate sample size for a basic qualitative research study with the use of focus group and personal interviews; however the small number of participants limits the extent to which these findings can be transferred outside the scope of this study. 2. All participants were employed at the school district in which the researcher works. Although the researcher did not work directly with any of the 145
participants, and despite the invitation for any participant to speak privately at any time with the researcher, the ability of the groups to speak freely and honestly concerning their experiences was limited due to the researcher working within the district. 3. The data collected was obtained in a district with well-developed resources and extensive on-going training. The number of difficulties encountered was less than expected due to the participants having a single perspective of the one district in South Carolina involved in the study. Diversity in data collection among a variety of school districts would provide more diverse data. Implication of the Findings for Practice The findings in the study can be used to provide recommendations for educational practitioners in the field. As a result of the study, it is has been found that the use of response to intervention is functioning as a reliable and viable process to identify struggling learners and provides remediation and intervention that is designed to support the deficiencies the learner demonstrates in order to successfully return the learner to the general classroom whenever possible. The students are able to remain in the intervention throughout the elementary school, if needed based on data-driven decisions and moved to Tier II, Tier IIIA, Tier IIIB, or special education classes through a team decision making process. The school district provides funding and provisions through researched-based programs and program specialists designed to visit schools and provide continued education and support for the teachers, interventionists, and administration at each building. Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendation are proposed: 1. Administration should ensure all employees understand their role in the process of communicating and collaborating through the RtI model. First, based on the types 146
of interactions teachers are having with interventionists, it may be that teachers are unaware of the necessity of developing a reciprocal teaching relationship with the interventionist who works with struggling learners from the general classroom. Secondly, staff development with both teachers and interventionists can provide a model for how data sharing and an awareness of what concepts and skills are being taught in one class can be transferred to the other to support the struggling learner. Schools must be cognizant that this new way of thinking and working may not be familiar to educators in the building and support at the administrative level for educating and defining expectations for a true collaborative team should be considered. 2. The possibility of time being provided for interventionists to provide feedback about their students’ progress during common planning or by attending the RtI team meetings should be explored. Interventionists are not included in decisionmaking meetings and feel valuable information they hold concerning the students’ progress in the intervention classroom should be considered before important decisions are made concerning the course of action in each student’s educational plan. Both teachers and interventionists feel responsible for test scores and student achievement and both educators being involved in the decision-making process can be used to the students’ advantage in terms of expectations and goal setting leading to higher academic achievement. In order for students’ to be as successful as possible, the need for the interventionists and classroom teacher to work together as an effective decision-making body with one goal is recommended. 147
Recommendations for Further Research Response to intervention has proven to be a sound method of identifying struggling learners and providing researched-based strategies and programs, which provide normed-referenced data that teams can use to make the best decision for remediation and education of each child individually. The findings in this study lead to following recommendations for further research and future practice: 1. Further research should be conducted to include schools from a variety of districts covering a geographically larger area of South Carolina or replicated in districts in states outside of South Carolina. 2. Repeating this study with a larger sample would be beneficial and may lead to the ability to transfer the findings to other settings. This study was confined to the availability and limits of practicality. Expanding the recruitment strategies to include a larger sample with participants from all schools in the district or surrounding areas should be considered. 3. Using a method of data collection that allows for more privacy would extinguish the possibility of participants’ honesty and trust so that the most accurate data could be obtained. The use of a survey added to the data collection methods would allow participants to express their perception of their involvement in the RtI process openly. 4. Repeating the study using additional conditions for recruitment to include teachers and interventionists who work specifically with students in RtI through the push-in model so that the differences between the pullout model, as described in this study, and the push-in method can be considered. Conclusion This research study was developed using a generic, or basic, qualitative design to gather information by collecting experiences of educators to determine the level and opportunities for collaboration and communication among teachers and interventionists who provide instruction to students who are in the process of RtI. The study examined the unique perspectives of teacher, interventionists, and administrators 148
through focus group interactions, personal interviews, and classroom observations. These multiple data sources were transcribed, examined and organized into themes and categories to gain an understanding of how communication and collaboration are used in this South Carolina district to ensure the struggling student is making adequate yearly progress and if strategies from one classroom are carried over from one learning environment to the other. The findings in this study connect the existing research to the themes that emerged from the sub-questions related to collaboration, communication, data, shared consistent models, and accountability within the organizational role of the educator. One theme that emerged from the data was that collaboration and communication must be used for next steps in students’ educational paths. The meaning and examples of collaboration and communication varied among the participants and included a great deal of positive responses that provided support for the struggling student. The data also revealed that the examples teachers provided as showing times of collaboration with the interventionist did not meet the educational definition including shared leadership and a reciprocal relationship. Instead, the teacher described times when interventionists provided help that could have been accomplished by an assistant, such as giving the interventionists low-level tasks to complete such as providing extra time or oral administration of a test or assignment. Administrators explained the expectations each had for teachers and interventionists to collaborate and communicate, however no administrator was able to provide an example of modeling, instruction, or time in the schedule to facilitate the interactions. Principals consistently used instructional coaches and lead interventionists, in lieu of the classroom interventionists, when answering 149
questions pertaining to providing input in data team meetings or RtI team meetings. The data revealed interventionists’ desire to be a part of the team meetings so that they could provide input into the decision making process for their students. The findings in the study show that nationally normed references are used consistently throughout the school district to make next steps decisions for struggling students in the RtI model. Often data is uploaded or delivered to teachers without input on how the student is progressing inside the intervention classroom. In addition, no attempt to replicate the learning from one environment to another was noted, although interventionists did express the desire to provide this information to teachers. Some continue to use emails with informational updates provided each week or through weekly newsletters as one principal described as an expectation for the interventionists in the building. Interestingly, both teachers and interventionists felt the same level of responsibility for student achievement and improving test scores despite the differing amount of time spent with the struggling student. Both groups felt it was a reflection on their abilities if the student was not performing as expected and interventionists expressed a desire to discuss the low performance with the data or RtI teams for additional suggestions or a change in placement for the student. This added to the interventionists’ desire to be present at decision-making meetings, as described by the interventionists. Overall, the desire to have students succeed and meet growth targets is a focus for each group involved in the study. Being responsible for student achievement, whatever the role within the school was a positive theme found in the data. Ensuring students have the opportunity to attend remedial programs designed to provide research-based instruction by qualified teachers in addition to the support the classroom teacher is 150
providing is the focus of administrators, interventionists, and teachers alike. For some groups, such as principals and teachers, it does not seem as concerning that interventionists are not able to attend the RtI meetings because each group feels the task of delivering the information can be managed by the lead interventionists, equipped with current test data, just as effectively. However, the overwhelming response of interventionists during the focus group is the desire to be included in the meetings. Effective communication and collaboration is a mainstay in education and with highstakes testing and increasing accountability, the need to share student data and having open door policies with regard to teaching and learning is a must with the response to intervention model in order to provide the most effective learning environments that will meet the needs of all learners.
151
REFERENCES Allington, R. L. (2007). Intervention all day long: New hope for struggling readers. Voices From the Middle, 14(4), 7-14. Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving professional practice. Educational Leadership. 63(6), 813. Basham, J. D., Israel, M., Graden, J., Poth, R., & Winston, M. (2010). A comprehensive approach to RtI: Embedding universal design for learning and technology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 243-255. Beehr, T. A. (1981). Work-role stress and attitudes toward co-workers. Group & Organization Studies (Pre-1986), 6(2), 201. Bloomberg, L. D. & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 19972007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Byrnes, M. A. (2009). Taking sides: Clashing views in special education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The leadership assignment: Creating change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Caldarella, P., Munk, J. H., & Gibb, G. S. (2010). Collaborative pre-teaching of students at risk for academic failure. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 177-185. doi:10.1177/1053451209349534 Coburn, C. E., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal Of Education, 112(4), 469-495. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cuban, L. (2008). Perennial reform: fixing school time. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 240250. Danielson, L., Bradley, R., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention implementation. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 632-637.
152
Diamond, T., & Duran, G. Z. (2012). Center on response to intervention. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/resources/rtiglossary-terms#RTI Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DuFour, R. (2011). Work together but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 5761. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Releasing responsibility. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 32-37. Friend, M. (2000). Myths and misunderstandings about professional collaboration. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 130. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309. 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. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263-279. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323. Gelzheiser, L. M., Meyers, J., & Pruzek, R. M. (1992). Effects of pull-in and pullout approaches to reading instruction for special education and remedial reading students. Journal Of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 3(2), 133. Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108. Gorton, R. A., & Alston, J. A. (2009). School leadership and administration: Important concepts, case studies & simulations (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Greenfield, S. A., Westwell, M. S., Plateau, C. R., Dommett, E. J., & Devonshire, I. M. (2011). From scientific theory to classroom practice. The Neuroscientist, 17(4), 382-388. doi:10.1177/1073858409356111
153
Harlacher, J. E., & Siler, C. E. (2011). Factors related to successful RTI implementation. Bethesda, Bethesda: Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/863405338?accountid=27965 Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C. A. (2007). Student-focused coaching: A model for reading coaches. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 690. Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Goodman, J. I., Duffy, M., & Brady, M. P. (2011). Response to intervention: General or special education? Who is responsible? Educational Forum, 75(1), 17-25. doi:10.1080/00131725.2010.528552 Helterbran, V. R. (2010). Teacher leadership: Overcoming ‘I am just a teacher’ syndrome. Education, 131(2), 363-371. Holmes, B. (2013). School teachers' continuous professional development in an online learning community: lessons from a case study of an e-twinning learning event. European Journal Of Education, 48(1), 97-112. doi:10.1111/ejed.12015 Houge, T. T., Geier, C., & Peyton, D. (2008). Targeting adolescents’ literacy skills using one-to-one instruction with research-based practices. Journal of Adolescence and Adult Literacy, 51(8), 640-650. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.8.3 Hughes, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics, organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. Journal Of Educational Research, 105(4), 245-255. doi:10.1080/00220671.2011.584922 Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1996). Role of collaborative dialogue in teacher's conceptions of appropriate practice for students at risk. Journal Of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 7(1), 9. Johnston, P. (2010). An instructional frame for RTI. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 602604. Klein, A. M., Zevenbergen, A. A., & Brown, N. (2006). Managing standardized testing in today's schools. The Journal of Educational Thought, 40(2), 145-157. Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108-117. Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998). Inclusion or pullout: Which do students prefer? Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 148. 154
Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Response to intervention: Considerations for research and systems change. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 638-646. Retrieved from http://blogs.gssd.ca/studentservices/files/2011/06/RtI-Considerations-forResearch-and-Systems-Change.pdf Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R.A. (1998) Developing questions for focus groups: Focus group kit 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lipson, M. Y., Chomsky-Higgins, P., & Kanfer, J. (2011). Diagnosis: The missing ingredient in RTI assessment. Reading Teacher, 65(3), 204-208. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01031 Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Loera, G., Nakamoto, J., Rueda, R., Youn Joo, O., Beck, C., & Cherry, C. (2013). Collaboration, communication, and connection: collegial support and collective efficacy among health science teachers. Career & Technical Education Research, 38(3), 191-209. doi:10.5328/cter38.3.191 Lynd, C. (2000). The new generation of standardized testing. Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform. Retrieved from https://www.edreform.com/ Maloney, C., & Konza, D. (2011). A case study of teachers’ professional learning: Becoming a community of professional learning or not? Issues in Educational Research, 21(1), 75-87. Marcell, B., & Ferraro, C. (2013). So long robot reader! A superhero intervention plan for improving fluency. Reading Teacher, 66(8), 607-614. doi:10.1002/trtr.1165 Masci, F. (2008). Time for time on task and quality instruction. Middle School Journal, 40(2), 33-41. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 155
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.) Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, B. S., Stormont, M., & Gage, N. A. (2011). Tier two interventions implemented within the context of a tiered prevention framework. Behavioral Disorders, 36(4), 241-261. Moors, A., Weisenburgh-Snyder, A., & Robbins, J. (2010). Integrating frequency-based mathematics instruction with a multi-level assessment system to enhance response to intervention frameworks. Behavior Analyst Today, 11(4), 226-244. Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 267-277. http://search.proquest.com/docview/228569895?accountid=27965 Ongstad, S. (2006). Mathematics and mathematics education as triadic communication? A semiotic framework exemplified. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 61(1/2), 247-277. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-8302-7 Olsen, D., & Near, J. P. (1994). Role conflict and faculty satisfaction. The Review of Higher Education, 17, 179-195. Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2007). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Palenchar, L., & Boyer, L. (2008). Response to intervention: Implementation of a statewide system. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 18-26. Pool, J. L., Carter, D. R., & Johnson, E. S. (2011). Validity evidence for the test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension (TOSREC). Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(1), 50-57. doi:10.1177/1534508411395556 Powers, K., & Mandal, A. (2011). Tier III assessments, data-based decision making, and interventions. Contemporary School Psychology, 15, 21-33. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/892428832?accountid=27965 Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review Of Social Psychology, 17(8), 271-320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772 Proctor, C. P., Greenfield, R., Cardarelli, A., & Rinaldi, C. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of a response to intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 47-63. doi:10.1177/1044207310365499 156
Ramaswami, R. (2010). Reshaping RTI: The controversial three-tiered, triangular instructional model is getting stretched in new directions by educators who favor holistic, proactive support strategies over formal remediation. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 37(8), 31. Ravitch, D. (2007). Ed speak: A glossary of education terms, phrases, buzzwords, and jargon. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203. Reeves, S., Bishop, J., & Filce, H. G. (2010). Response to intervention (RtI) and tier systems: Questions remain as educators make challenging decisions. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(4), 30-35. Ritchey K. D., Silverman R. D., Montanaro, E. A., Speece, D. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourthgrade students. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 318. Sansosti, F. J., & Noltemeyer, A. (2008). Viewing response-to-intervention through an educational change paradigm: What can we learn? The California School Psychologist, 13(10873414), 55-55-66. Shanahan, T. (2008). Implications of RTI for the Reading Teacher. International Reading Association, WIS Prevention-Response to Intervention: A Framework for Reading Educators, 105-122. Shepherd, K., & Salembier, G. (2011). Improving schools through a response to intervention approach: A cross-case analysis of three rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 3-15. http://search.proquest.com/docview/903807136?accountid=27965 Singh, K. (2012). Preparing for the challenges of effectively distributing leadership: Lessons learned from the creation of leadership team. Journal of Transformative Leadership and Policy Studies, 2(1), 35-46. South Carolina Department of Education. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative Comparative Review Report. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Education. Spanneut, G. (2010). Professional learning communities, principals, and collegial conversations. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(3), 100-103. 157
Sparks, D. (2013). Strong teams, strong schools. Journal Of Staff Development, 34(2), 28-30. Spillan, J. E., Mino, M., & Rowles, M. S. (2002). Sharing organizational messages through effective lateral communication. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 96104. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10-17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227219845?accountid=27965 Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sun, M., Penuel W. R., Frank, K. A., Gallagher, H. A., & Youngs, P. (2013). Shaping professional development to promote the diffusion of instructional expertise among teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 344. Tilly, W., Harken, S., Robinson, W., & Kurns, S. (2008). Three tiers of intervention. School Administrator, 65(8), 20-23. Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Using an RtI model to guide early reading instruction: Effects on identification rates for students with learning disabilities (Florida Center for Reading Research Technical Report No. 7). Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/torgesen/Response_intervention_Florida.pdf Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-52. Wells, C. & Feun, L. (2013). Educational change and professional learning communities: A story of two districts. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 233-257. doi: 10.1007/310833-012-9202-5 Wickham, M., & Parker, M. (2007). Re-conceptualizing organizational role theory for contemporary organizational contexts. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 440-464. doi:10.1108/02683940710757182 Wilcox, K. A., Murakami-Ramalho, E., & Urick, A. (2013). Just-in-time pedagogy: teachers' perspectives on the response to intervention framework. Journal Of Research In Reading, 36(1), 75-95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01494.x
158
Woodward, M. M., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2009). Reading intervention models: Challenges of classroom support and separated instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(3), 190-200. Wright, J. (2007). RTI toolkit: A practical guide for schools. Port Chester, NY: Dude. Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.
159
APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK Academic Honesty Policy Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for the integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project. Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy, definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that learners will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works. The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in the Policy: Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another person’s ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1) Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying verbatim or rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author, date, and publication medium. (p. 2) Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for research integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy: Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1) Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not limited to dismissal or revocation of the degree.
160
Statement of Original Work and Signature I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) and Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06), including the Policy Statements, Rationale, and Definitions. I attest that this dissertation or capstone project is my own work. Where I have used the ideas or words of others, I have paraphrased, summarized, or used direct quotes following the guidelines set forth in the APA Publication Manual. Learner name and date
Christine Tucker
Mentor name and school
Dr. Shirlan Mosley-Jenkins
April 23, 2015
161
Capella University
APPENDIX B. FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONING ROUTE Hello and welcome to the focus group for teachers who work with struggling student through response to intervention. I am collecting data as part of the dissertation process with Capella University and I am interested in gaining an understanding of how teachers communicate with the interventionists when working with struggling students. I am interested in your views because you have been working with interventionists for several years and you have a wealth of information that will help to explain how teachers are kept informed about the student’s progress when the response to intervention process takes the child from your class for intervention strategies. I am also interested in how the learning is possibly transferred from one learning environment to another when the student is already struggling to maintain or show growth in academic areas.
We will be discussing your attempts to collaborate and communicate with interventionists and particularly how you are able to help the struggling learner with whom you work. I am interested in your viewpoints and comments concerning your ability to communicate and collaborate with other educators through the RtI process. The questions are open-ended and there are no correct answers. Your negative comments are just as important to my understanding as your positive comments and viewpoints. I am interested in understanding your work with interventionists, specifically your ability to communicate and collaborate with others who work with the struggling student.
Before we begin, I just want to give you a few instructions and explain my role. Please speak up and use active listening while others are sharing. Only one person should speak 162
at a time. If a person is answering quickly or talking more than others, I may ask that person to give others a chance to respond. On the same point, if someone is quiet I may ask for his or her opinion. I will be reading the questions you have listed on your handout and I may add a probing question that is not recorded. I will be audiotaping the session and taking notes so that I do not miss any information. We are using first names during the session, however when the data is transcribed no names or identifying marks will be used. Your participation is confidential and all remarks you hear in this room should not be discussed once the focus group meeting is over. I may revisit some of the participants to ensure I have understood your ideas accurately. Let’s begin: 1) Tell the group about yourself. How long have you been teaching? What is your current position and location within the district? 2) In what ways do you assist children who are currently in response to intervention? 3) In what ways have you discussed the struggling student’s progress, a need you may have had, or asked for input while making a decision? 4) What forms of communication have you used for these interactions? Which is most frequently used? 5) How do you discuss student progress and come to agreements about next steps with other educators that work with the struggling student? In what ways are other educators open to alternate suggestions and willing to entertain diverse options? 6) How accepting are others to opinions and suggestions interventionists may have for next steps in the student’s course of remediation? 163
7) To what extent are staff who work with students in the response to intervention model trained? What additional training, if any might you suggest? 8) In what ways are children given adequate time to improve before a more restrictive course of remediation is considered? To what extent are children left in the RtI model before the team makes decisions to return him or her to the general education class? 9) What recommendations do you have for improving the communication efforts of the RtI team? 10) What can be done in the school to assist children while in the process of RtI and avoid a special education label? Thank you very much for your assistance with this data collection. I appreciate your time and hope that the rest of your evening is enjoyable. If I can answer any questions, I will be available here for about 20 minutes and would be happy to meet with you privately. Information about the data collection, eligibility to participate, roles and responsibilities that I am required to follow to ensure your safety and confidentiality can be found through the IRB documents and permission to conduct the study as outlined. The information was outlined in the consent form you were provided with when you signed permission to participate in the study.
164
