Response to intervention (RtI) provides tiered levels of supports to all students and allows for increasingly more intensive and individualized instruction. Similarly, universal design for learning (UDL) addresses needs of students by proactively planning for instructional, environmental, and technology supports to allow all students to effectively access and engage in instruction. Although these two frameworks are widely accepted as structures for supporting students with diverse learning needs, the relationship between them has not been adequately developed. This article describes how an ecological RtI framework that integrates scientifically based instructional strategies, proactive instructional design, and purposeful technology use can provide a more seamless support system for all students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettD. W.HawkinsR. O.PrasseD.MacMannG.GradenJ. L.NantaisM.PanW. (2007). The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. Decision making validity in response to intervention (pp. 106–116). New York: Springer Science Inc.
2.
BashamJ.GardnerJ. (2010). Measuring universal design for learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 12 (2), 15–19.
3.
BatscheG.ElliotJ.GradenJ. L.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ. F.PrasseD.ReschlyD. J.SchragJ.TillyW. D.III (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
4.
BoyleE. A.RosenbergM. S.ConnellyV. J.WashburnS. G.BrinckerhoffL. C.BanerjeeM. (2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26 (3), 203–214.
5.
BurnsM. K.AppletonJ. J.StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
6.
CaplanG. (1964). Principles of prevention in psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2008). Universal design for learning guidelines version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
EdyburnD. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Students, 32 (9), 1–24.
12.
EdyburnD. L. (2004). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5 (4), 16–23.
13.
EdyburnD. L. (2006a). Evaluating academic performance: With and without technology. MACUL Journal, 26 (4), 26–27, 48.
14.
EdyburnD.L. (2006b). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading with Technology, 34 (1), 20–23.
15.
EdyburnD. L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions in the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33 (1), 33–41.
16.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/pdf/monograph_full.pdf.
17.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The blurring of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76 (3), 301–323.
18.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009 4060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
19.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009- 4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
20.
GordonR. S. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports, 48, 107–109.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as amended), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq.
23.
JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.Van Der HeydenA. M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.
24.
KlingnerJ. K.EdwardsP. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 108–117.
25.
LowreyA. L.BashamJ. D. (2010). Individualized education programs (IEPs). In HunterT. C.CarperJ. C.LasleyT. J.RaischC. D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational reform and dissent (pp. ?-?). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
MarstonD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in Responsiveness to Intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 539–544.
27.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multiple learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Pub. L. No. 107–110.
30.
ParetteH. P.Peterson-KarlanG. R.WojcikB. W.BardiN. (2007). Monitor that progress! Interpreting data trends for AT decision-making. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (7), 22–29.
QuinnB. S.BehrmannM.MastriopieriM.ChungY. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools?Journal of Special Education Technology, 24 (1), 1–13.
33.
RoseD. H.HasselbringT.StahlS.ZabalaJ. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 33–41). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
34.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
35.
SailorW. (2008). Access to the general education: Systems change or tinker some more?Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33 (4), 249–257.
36.
SchnepsM. H.O'KeeffeJ. K.Heffner-WongA.SonnertG. (in press). Using span-limiting technologies to support close-reading in STEM. Journal of Special Education Technology.
SugaiG.HornerR. R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: Schoolwide positive behavior support. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50.
39.
SugaiG.HornerR. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining schoolwide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.
40.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WoodruffA. L.Linan-ThompsonS. (2007). A three-tier model for preventing reading difficulties and early identification of students with reading disability. In HaagerD. H.VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K. (Eds.), Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 11–28). Baltimore: Brookes.
41.
WigginsG.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
42.
YellM. L., (2006). The law and special education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
