A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI: EMBEDDING · PDF fileA COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI: EMBEDDING UNIVERSAL ... ¡as a means to achieving high-quality instruction ... coming barriers

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI:EMBEDDING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR

LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY

fames D. Basham, Maya Israel, Janet Graden, Rita Poth, and Markay Winston

Abstract. Response to intervention (Rtl) provides tiered levelsof supports to all students and allows for increasingly more inten-sive and individualized instruction. Similarly, universal design forlearning (UDL) addresses needs of students by proactively plan-ning for instructional, environmental, and technology supports toallow all students to effectively access and engage in instruction.Although these two frameworks are widely accepted as structuresfor supporting students with diverse learning needs, the relation-ship between them has not been adequately developed. This arti-cle describes how an ecological Rtl framework that integratesscientifically based instructional strategies, proactive instruc-tional design, and purposeful technology use can provide a moreseamless support system for all students.

JAMES D. BASHAM, Ph.D., Special Education, University of Cincinnati.MAYA ISRAEL, Ph.D., Special Education, University of Cincinnati.

JANET GRADEN, Ph.D., School Psychology, University of Cincinnati.RITA POTH, Ph.D., Center of Student Success, University of Cincinnati.

MARKAY WINSTON, Ph.D., Department of Student Services, Cincinnati Public Schools.

Now more than ever, the field of education, includingspecial education, is being called on to educate and pro-vide ¡meaningful outcomes for all students, regardless ofdisability or learning need. Highlighting this call toactic)n, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Actof 2004 (IDEA) conceptualized response to intervention(Rtl)¡as a means to achieving high-quality instructionfor all students and, as needed, provide more intensiveand structured intervention to ensure that studentsattain success both academically and behaviorally. As aframework, Rtl moved away from the practice of allow-ing students to continually fail prior to receiving moresupport and intervention. This proactive approach toproviding services for all students was a specific intentof the law following recommendations by key groups(e.g.,! President's Commission on Special Education).

Since first launched, Rtl practices have become morecommon and widely implemented. A recent report(Spectrum K12, 2010) indicated that 43 states have Rtlpractices written into state rules, and over 60% ofschool districts use some level of Rtl implementation.Although the research literature continues to includediscussions on differing approaches to Rtl implementa-tion (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Marston,2005), specific interventions and results (e.g.. Klingner& Edwards, 2006), and how to approach eligibilitywithin Rtl practices (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2010), it isclear that there is substantial research demonstratingthe effectiveness of Rtl (e.g.. Burns, Appleton, &Stehouwer, 2005). Moreover, the Rtl concepts and prac-tices are unmistakably reflected in Institute forEducational Practice Guides for reading and mathe-

Volume 33, Fall 2010 243

matics instruction (Gersten et al., 2009; Gersten et al.,2008).

Having an established literature base on Rtl is impor-tant to understand various perspectives, move the fieldforward, and provide guidance for implementation. Todate, there is a lack of literature on a wider ecologicalapproach to Rtl that considers the merit of instructionalstrategies as well as variables such as purposeful instruc-tional design and technology to support all learners.Through the use of UDL and technology, schools canprovide more accessible, meaningful, and engaginglearning environments for all students, especially thosewith diverse learning needs (Rose & Meyer, 2002).

The purpose of this article is to introduce an ecologi-cal framework of Rtl that incorporates UDL and pur-poseful technology use with evidence-based strategiesto support the needs of all students. After establishing acommon foundation to develop the framework thatembeds the needed ecological elements, we introducethe ecological Rtl framework and provide considera-tions for adoption and implementation. Finally, we dis-cuss how this framework has implications for practice,personnel preparation, research, and policy.

ESTABLISHING A FOUNDATIONAs a leading organization in the field, the National

Association of State Directors of Special Education(Batsche et al., 2005) defines Rtl as "the practice of pro-viding high quality instruction and interventionmatched to student need, monitoring progress fre-quently to make decisions about changes in instruction,and applying child response data to important educa-tional decisions" (p. 3). This definition provides a basicunderstanding of Rtl by focusing on instruction, andhighlights the importance of how other variables (e.g.,educational decisions) beyond instruction are necessaryto support students' success. It is these other variablesthat need to be more thoroughly identified in an eco-logical model.

From the onset, thought must be given to current pol-icy within general and special education. For instance,both No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001) and IDEA(2004) provide language regarding accelerating stu-dents' progress on state standards and using scientifi-cally based instruction for reading and mathematics.Once a student has been identified with a disability,IDEA provides further language to consider the supportsand specialized instruction needed to enhance the stu-dent's present level of academic achievement and func-tional performance (PLAAFP) in the least restrictiveenvironment (LRE).

Both laws clearly set a foundation for providing high-quality instruction and examining instructional con-texts. For instance, within IDEA, school teams are tofocus on PLAAFP using evidence-based practices thatprovide accessible and high-quality learning environ-ments that support meaningful educational benefit

(Yell, 2006). Moreover, intensity of services, or a stu-dent's program, that supports success is not defined bylocation or place; in fact, all students are to receiveservices in the LRE (IDEA, 2004). Given this under-,standing, all supports must be taken into considerationwhen making decision of intensity of services and LRE(Yell, 2006).

From this foundation in law, we propose that Rtl andUDL share some common purposes and features thatare consistent with these requirements. First, both Rtland UDL share the common purpose of providing acomprehensive system focused on proactive research-based practices aimed at providing meaningful educa-tional outcomes for all students. Second, Rtl and UDL,from our perspective, share an ecological approachfocused on creating an effective system for instructionand intervention. This includes implementation of theUDL principles, which use both evidence-based strate-gies and modern technology to support learning. Third,both Rtl and UDL make specific use of a problem-solv-ing process that is premised on data-based decisionmaking. Problem solving is a hallmark of bothapproaches at the system level (districtwide, school-wide) as well as within grade-level teaching teams andstudent-focused problem-solving teams. Using perform-ance data, initial problem solving is focused on creatinginstructional environments where all students can besuccessful. For students who do not respond to initialinstructional designs, problem solving addresses thenewfound variables and develops solutions to moreintensive or individualized problems.

Thus, the purpose of this ecological Rtl framework isnot to designate students as responders and non-responders, but to design environments and solutionsfor all students. Moreover, within this framework, it isimportant to understand that intensity does not equalplace or location. As it aligns with LRE, students mayrequire intense support or intervention and remain in ageneral education environment. For example, a studentmay be successfully responding to what is considered"intensive" support by having access to a device, such asa laptop, that provides support for text-to-speech. Thestudent's level is not designated simply by the laptop.

EMBEDDING INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNAND TECHNOLOGY

The field has long recognized the importance of phys-ically accessible environments. However, little attentionhas been paid to learning environments that areaccessible to all learners. Such learning environmentsrequire a focus on design, strategy, and technology. Forinstance, empirical research has found that throughproactive instructional design and the use of moderntechnology, the learning environment can becomemore accessible to a number of learners. For example,through a number of empirical studies, Mayer (2009)

Learning Disability Quarterly 244

demo|nstrated that student learning can be enhanced byutilizing specific multimedia design principles withindigital environments. Similarly, in a study focusing onScience Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) education and individuals with disabilities,Schneps, O'Keeffe, Heffner-Wong, and Sonnert (inpress) demonstrated how a simple interface design on awidely utilized technology could provide more accessi-ble content-based text for all students, especially thosewith learning disabilities (LD). In another empiricalstudy, Boyle et al. (2003) showed that students withhigh-incidence disabilities who used either an audiotextbook or an audio textbook with a strategy were bet-ter able to demonstrate content acquisition than stu-dents who used a regular textbook.

Siniilar to the process of making physical environ-ments more accessible, developing accessible learningenvironments requires work across the system to sup-port the needs of diverse learners. These environmentalconsiderations are based on proactive problem solvingand design focused on maintaining a flexible curricu-lum (national, state, district), providing needed accessto usable modern instructional tools (developers, state,district, school), encouraging multiple authentic meas-ures of success (national, state, district, teacher), utiliz-ing purposeful backwards design-based instructionalplanning (school, teacher), and being implementedwith fidelity (teacher). Currently, UDL (Center forApplied Special Technology [CAST], 2008; Rose &Meyer, 2002) is the most comprehensive instructionaldesigri framework for implementing this type of acces-sible environment.

As highlighted by the National Center on UniversalDesign for Learning (2009), UDL is supported by a sub-stantial amount of empirical research. As a framework,UDL is based on the premise that learning environ-ments should include curriculum, instruction, andinstructional materials that are accessible to as manystudents as possible, including both students who arelow and high performing. This level of accessibility isaccomplished through the use of proactive instructionaldesign, instructional strategies, and technology to sup-port multiple means of knowledge representation,engagement, and expression of understanding (Rose &Meyei", 2002). The legal definition of UDL may be foundin the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of2008:

The term Universal Design for Learning means ascientifically valid framework for guiding educa-tional practice that (A) provides flexibility in theways information is presented, in the ways stu-dents respond or demonstrate knowledge andskills, and in the ways students are engaged; and(B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appro-priate accommodations, supports, and challenges,and maintains high achievement expectations for

all students, including students with disabilitiesand students who are limited English proficient.(HEOA, 2008, 122 STAT.3088)

By definition, UDL is concentrated on proactively over-coming barriers that inhibit students from being suc-cessful and maintaining high levels of achievement.From this stance, UDL plays a crucial role within theproactive practice of Rtl.

As noted, technology is fundamental to implement-ing a UDL instructional design. Thus, integrating UDLinto an ecological Rtl framework requires greater under-standing of how technology may be used to support stu-dent learning. In this context, it is important toconsider how technology can, support learning at alltiers of instruction and intervention. For instance,whereas multiple technologies should be accessible andpurposefully used during core instruction (tier 1), as stu-dents require additional support (tiers 2 and 3), bothinstructional intervention and technology should beused in a more individualized and persistent manner.

Within special education, UDL has a symbiotic rela-tionship with assistive technology (AT). Both UDL andAT work to overcome barriers, provide access, and sup-port participation for students with disabilities (Rose,Hasselbring, Stahl, & Zabala, 2005). Like UDL, AT hasbeen denned in federal law. According to IDEA (2004),assistive technology was defined as "any item, piece ofequipment, or product system, whether acquired com-mercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that isused to increase, maintain, or improve the functionalcapabilities of a child with a disability" with the excep-tion' of a medical device that has been surgicallyimplanted (20 U.S.C. 1401(1)).

Although both UDL and AT rely on problem solving,AT is more clearly focused on locating a solution for anindividual student (particularly a student with a disabil-ity) than on proactively overcoming and supporting theneeds of all students. The function of AT is essential forindividuals with disabilities, yet the legal deflnition ofAT also has consequences for use within an ecologicalRtl framework. Moreover, utilization of AT is also tied tothe perceptions of the field.

Unfortunately, AT has been commonly overlookedfor individuals with mild to moderate disabilities(Edyburn, 2000). In fact, although more national dataare needed to draw more definitive conclusions,Quinn, Behrmann, Mastriopieri, and Chung (2009)found AT use in schools to be low overall, but espe-cially low for students with high-incidence disabilitiesin general education environments. In fact, Quinn etal. found increased AT use and considerations associ-ated with students in more restrictive environments.Assistive technology remains one of the most widelyoverlooked and neglected components on the IEP(Lowrey & Basham, 2010); yet, when appropriatelypaired, AT can provide students with greater accessibil-


ity, success, and, independence. The current limitedview of AT neglects the importance of technology as acritical support for students, especially for studentswith mild disabilities.

Promoting the idea that the functional purpose ofAT has benefits beyond individuals with disabilities,Edyburn (2004) dissected the legal definition of AT.Based on this review, Edyburn supported merging theactual functions of UDL, instructional technology, andAT. In this functional view, Edyburn (2004) promotedthe idea of thinking about AT as simply "technology-enhanced performance" (p. 20).

This view encourages us to expand our understand-ing of the value of technology in supporting studentneeds and consider the purposeful nature of how weutilize technology to enhance our performance. Forinstance, many people use eye glasses or contact lensesto see clearly, use e-mail to communicate with multiplepeople throughout the day, and use devices such assmart phones to do a multitude of tasks, such as find-ing locations on maps, listening to audio books, takingand sharing pictures, sending text messages, and mak-ing phone calls. For some people, these technologiesprovide necessary access; for others, these same tech-nologies offer increased performance and efficiency.

This functional view of "how" technology can pur-posefully be used to support human performance ispedagogically important for educating all students,especially those with diverse learning needs, whetherthey are low or high performers. Moreover, realizingthe merits of technology as a purposeful part of instruc-tional design, whether used proactively with all stu-dents or reactively based on performance data of agroup of students or a single student, is essential to anecological Rtl model. This broader view of technology,which encompasses UDL-based instructional design,AT solutions, and high-quality instruction, is necessaryto support all students, across the tiers of instructionand intervention.

Core Premise of an Rtl Ecological FrameworkAs discussed in the previous section, Rtl and UDL

(along with AT) share a common framework - both arepremised on the use of a comprehensive, multi-tieredsystem that focuses on a solid core of practices, withsupplemental interventions and strategies buildingupon this core. This multi-tiered system for Rtl has ori-gins in the public health literature (Caplan, 1964;Gordon, 1983). Basically, the system is based on threetiers, focused on the concept of prevention at variouslevels - primary, secondary, and tertiary.

The first tier is based on a solid foundation of preven-tion to incorporate practices across a wider populationaimed at preventing the occurrence of a public health

issue for most individuals (e.g., providing clean water,promoting lifestyle changes). In education, this trans-lates to the use of a solid core of scientifically based orresearch-based instruction for academics and behavior.The second tier in public health is called "secondaryprevention," and focuses on early detection and provid-ing immediate, research-based intervention to thosedetermined to be at risk for a public health issue (e.g.,smoking cessation, changing diet and exercise for thoseat risk for diabetes or high blood pressure). The educa-tional application is for targeted, research-based inter-ventions, delivered in a rapid response to students inneed of supplemental intervention. The third tier inpublic health is called "tertiary prevention," andincludes the most intensive treatments delivered tothose who have already developed a health problem in

. order to mitigate the effects (e.g., heart stents). In edu-cation, the concept is similar - the most intensive inter-ventions are provided to students who need them,based on assessments and their performance data.

This tiered framework also has been in use for positivebehavior and intervention support (PBIS) (Sugai &Homer, 2002, 2006). In PBIS, these same tiers areapplied to provide preventive, research-based practicesto promote positive behavior for all students, withincreasing intensity tiers of additional and targetedresearch-based interventions and environmental sup-ports for students whose behavior indicates more sup-port is needed.

Focused on purpose, the primary feature of the eco-logical framework, similar to Rtl and UDL (and PBIS), isprevention. Through core practices of purposeful instruc-tional design, high-quality implementation of instruc-tional strategies, and use of technology, the aim is toprevent the occurrence of problems for most students.This preventive focus contrasts with previous reactiveapproaches, characterized within the special educationliterature as "wait to fail" (i.e., waiting for a discrepancyor a referral before providing intervention) (Donovan &Cross, 2002; President's Commission on Excellence inSpecial Education, 2002). The intentional use of school-wide practices across a comprehensive system ofinstruction, intervention, and technology supports pro-vides a structure that spans three tiers.

Using this ecological approach, the tiers of instructionand intervention are designed to meet the needs of alllearners, including students with disabilities, those withno identified disabilities, those who would benefit fromenrichment, and students who are English Language

. Learners (ELLs). In this comprehensive approach, Rtl isnot merely used as an alternative approach to interven-tion prior to a referral or an alternative approach todetermination of special education eligibility. Rather,tiers of instruction and intervention are designed dis-

Leaming Disability Quarterly 246

trict- and schoolwide to facilitate effective instructionalstructures and supports to promote positive academicand behavioral outcomes for all students.

In an ecological approach to Rtl, tiers are character-ized by increasing intensity and individualization ofstrategies, practices, supports, technology solutions, andpersonnel. Tiers, therefore, are not seen as a place (i.e.,tier 1 is not "general education," tier 2 is not "compen-satory education," and tier 3 is not "special education").This distinction of how tiers are defined varies acrossdescriptions of Rtl approaches and was addressed byChrist, Burns, and Ysseldyke (2005). We agree with theirconceptualization of a comprehensive framework; thus,an ecological approach to Rtl focuses on a comprehen-sive approach for supporting students with broader con-siderations of accessible and engaging instructionaldesign and technology use rather than simply a new ordifferent way to categorize or label students. This con-ception of an ecological Rtl framework allows for sup-ports! to be flexible and transitional. For example, astudent without identified disabilities who is at risk forfailure in a particular subject may require intensive tier3 instruction and support technologies to help him orher succeed.

Operationalizing an Ecological Rtl FrameworkOperationalizing the working elements of the Rtl

framework is important for conceptualizing how tomove; toward adoption and implementation. In this sec-tion, we begin to discuss the vision for what an ecolog-ical framework looks like in practice.

Tiers of instruction and intervention. As justdescribed, a key component of an ecological Rtl frame-work is a shared structure of tiers with research-basedcore practices focused on instruction (tier 1), supple-mental and targeted small-group intervention (tier 2),and more intensive, individualized intervention (tier 3).Rtl implementation focuses on tiers of instruction andintervention organized within an integrated system,and primarily emphasizes core instruction and inter-vention in reading, math, and behavior (Gersten et al.,2008; Gersten et al., 2009).

Within the tiers, UDL integration provides the foun-dation for design of the learning environment and coreinstructional practices. This foundation is supportedthrough proactive design, strategies, and technology.For instance, using a process of backwards design(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), which focuses instructionon the end goals of specific knowledge and skills as wellas "big ideas" we want students to acquire, UDL pro-vides i the core building block for how instruction takesplace, and how practices such as differentiation areformed. Thus, if the goal of instruction is to help stu-dents' better understand expository text, tier 1 supports

will include specific reading comprehension strategiesembedded within the core curriculum and provide forprinciples of UDL through instruction and technologysupports. As we move to tiers 2 and 3, the UDL remains;however, supplemental and individualized supports(including technology solutions) become more focusedon smaller groups of students or individualized stu-dents' needs. In our example, tier 2 supports may con-sist of more intensive reading strategy instruction withadditional levels of progress monitoring and perhapswidely available text-to-speech support.

A key idea in providing additional supports is that thesystem must be designed proactively to be responsive tolearners and to provide supports (interventions, strate-gies, technologies) automatically as students need them.This is done by providing rapid response, avoiding thereactive "wait.to fail'' approach that characterized pastpractices. Similar to other tiered approaches such asPBIS (Sugai & Horner, 2002), this ecological approachrequires schoolwide use of data and data-based decision-making teams. It allows for schoolwide, classroomwide,small-group, and individualized design and delivery ofinterventions so there is a comprehensive, seamless sys-tem for supporting progress of all students.

A data-based decision making and problem-solvingapproach. The focus on using data for all decisions andthe explicit use of a problem-solving model across andwithin tiers are hallmarks of Rtl approaches (Batsche etal., 2005). Although UDL is less explicit in terms of data-based decision making, Edyburn (2010) clearly articu-lates that UDL is about problem solving andunderstanding instructional design for diverse learners.Such an understanding of instructional design mustengage around using data to make decisions.

A key feature across an ecological Rtl framework is theuse of student response data as well as environmental datawithin the decision-making process. Direct assessmentof student skills and performance as well as teacheradherence (or fidelity) to design are key to makinginstructional decisions; however, looking at studentperformance without also considering the influence ofthe formative environment fails to take an ecologicalapproach. That is, elements of the environment thatmay directly affect student performance should be con-sidered within the problem-solving process.

For example, within student behavior, the field usesfunctional behavior assessments and analyses to con-sider variables associated with behavior (IDEA, 2004).These processes in turn influence problem solving forstudent behavior. Similar considerations should bemade with technology in the learning environment. Infact, simplistic models for gathering and making deci-sions with technology exist. The works of Edyburn(2006a, 2006b) and the similar approaches of Parette,


Peterson-Karlan, Wojcik, and Bardi (2007) provide effec-tive models for assessing the influence of technology onstudent learning. Although these models focus on datacollection between a single student's performance andtechnology, there is no reason why they could not beexpanded to look at larger groups. This type of scalingup would be aligned with the work within PBIS thatexpands the basic concepts of FBA to the system levelfor whole-school data collection and decision making.

Scientifically based instruction, intervention, andpractices. The use of scientifically based practices isinherently important in law as well as in an ecologicalframework. Considerations must be made of implemen-tation of these practices across the tiers. Teams mustalso consider research-based practices that have beenshown to be effective across multiple fields of practice,including psychology, instructional design, and tech-nology. As mentioned, Mayer (2009), Schneps et al. (inpress), and Boyle et al. (2003) provide excellent exam-ples of how technology can be used within scientificallybased practice. Across the tiers, tearhs should considerlocalized data in conjunction with up-to-date researchdatabases.to help problem solve and develop solutions.After a decision is made to use a scientifically basedpractice, procedural adherence or fidelity measures arethen important for measuring and evaluating thefidelity of implementation. Teams should avoid beingconstrained to the use of a set of practices. The centralfocus should be on using a data-based decision-makingmodel to enhance progress and learning for all students,including those with disabilities and diverse learningneeds, both low and high performers.

Universal screening, progress monitoring, andassessment. Although there is less explicit discussion ofuniversal screening and progress monitoring in the UDLliterature than in the Rtl literature, we believe that theconcepts are shared across the two frameworks andshould be used within an ecological Rtl framework. InRtl, universal screening is a core component within the .prevention approach; that is, there must be an assess-ment system in place to screen all students in order to(a) assess the effectiveness of core instruction and sup-ports in meeting the needs of most students (typicallydefined as at least 80% of students on whatever is beingmeasured) and (b) identify those who are in need ofmore intensive intervention. Although Basham andGardner (2010) have discussed the need for and designof a UDL measurement instrument, more work isneeded relative to measuring this instructional designframework. Moreover, Rtl screening and assessmentmust consider how to incorporate the core principlesof UDL.

Family involvement. Consistent with an ecologi-cal/systems approach, we believe that intentionally

involving families within the comprehensive system ofinstruction and intervention is critical to successfulimplementation of these approaches for all students.Too often, family and parent involvement is not explic-itly discussed within Rtl or UDL approaches.

We see family involvement as following the intensitydimension; that is, schools engage families in school-wide practices at tier 1 in a preventive and differentiatedway, and progressively involve parents in collaborationand decision making as interventions intensify. Byintentionally involving parents in this way, schools areengaging in best practices for parent involvement, pre-venting problems, and remaining consistent with legalrequirements for providing parents information anddata on progress on interventions, as included in specialeducation law.

DESCRIPTION OF TIERS ACROSS RTIAND UDL

Figure 1 depicts the proposed three-tier ecologicalmodel of Rtl. Within this framework, as students requireincreasing levels of supports, the focus on UDL as wellas instructional best practices remains consistent.However, the use of AT begins to take a more primaryrole. For example, in tier 1 reading instruction, instruc-tion would include differentiation in reading level,embedded whole-class reading comprehension strate-gies, and possible use of digital text (provides multipleoptions for accessibility). Tier 2 may include continueddifferentiation in reading levels, more explicit, small-group reading comprehension instruction, and inclu-sion of text-to-speech software to accompany the digitaltext. Within tier 2, consideration of more individualizedtechnology supports also begins to take shape. Forinstance, if data can be used to determine that a simplebut more individualized text-to-speech option can beused to support a student, it should be done (e.g.,individualized technology-enhanced practice). This pre-vents student failure and could be beneficial to theschool because it circumvents the need for more con-centrated effort of personnel and resources at tier 3.Finally, if students require tier 3 supports while UDLproactive design remains in place, a focused effort ismade toward more intensive individualized supports,including, but not limited to, more complex assistivetechnology. For instance, a student could require asoftware system that includes individualization forvocabulary supports, text-to-speech, and comprehen-sion supports.

Tier 1: Core Instructional PracticesAcross both Rtl and UDL frameworks, a primary fea-

ture is a solid core of scientifically based curriculum andinstruction, which includes differentiated instruction


and UDL principles, intentionally designed to meet thelearning and behavior support needs of all students.Effective instruction consists of methods to differentiateinstruction to ensure that all students are challenged tomeet learning goals, whether they are on target to meetstandards, are in need of more support, or are exceedingstandards.

Effective differentiation involves more than providinginstruction in different formats. In differentiation andUDL; there are common learning goals, but also flexi-bility in the learning process (use of time, materials,grouping, assessment practices, instructional methods).An important feature of this framework is the use ofongoing assessment of student needs related to instruc-tion, technology, and other instructional supports toplan instruction that is matched to data on student per-formance and needs.

The criterion for success used across most Rtl frame-works, premised on the prevention focus of tier 1, is

that core instructional practices are effective for at least80% of all students, with no achievement gaps for sub-groups of students (i.e., NCLB subgroups). If assess-ments show that fewer than 80% of studentsdemonstrate mastery of the skill or if subgroups of stu-dents show significant achievement gaps, then thefocus of efforts is to intensify, differentiate, andstrengthen core instructional practices to the levelneeded to support the learning/performance of moststudents. In schools that have a large number of stu-dents with intensive learning needs (e.g., not meetingproficiency on state tests), core classroom-based instruc-tion must be intensified and differentiated. In this situ-ation, it is not feasible to "move" large percentages ofstudents to tier 2 interventions; rather, features of moreintensive intervention should be built into the coreclassroom instruction.

Research-based approaches to implementing tiers forreading and math are described in practice guides from

Figure 1. An ecological Rtl model that embeds UDL and AT.

Individualized Interventionsincludes AT & UDL More Individuaiized and

intensified

Supplemental Interventionsincludes UDL & AT

Core Instructional Practicesincludes UDL

An ecological Approach to Rtl usesscientifically based instructional

strategy, ULD-based instructional-design, and technology to support

student need.

More Proactive andGroup Focused


the Institute for Educational Science (Gersten et al.,2008; Gersten et al., 2009). Providing this solid core ofpractices, including UDL principles, is important, inthat research has demonstrated, for the domain ofreading, that implementation of research-based prac-tices results in positive outcomes for most students,preventing the need for more intensive intervention(Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson,2007). Finally, effective core practices at tier 1 use a sys-tem of schoolwide supports for implementation. Acomprehensive system to support effective practicesacross tiers includes the use of teaming at all levels (dis-trictwide team for planning and implementation sup-port, schoolwide team for data-based decision makingand instructional planning, grade-level teams forinstructional planning, and flexible grouping, based onstudent progress data), and use of high-quality profes-sional development, such as imbedded support andcoaching, to support teachers to use research-basedinstruction and strategies (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé,Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).

Tier 2: Supplemental, More Targeted InterventionsA key feature of tier 2 is that the system of instruction

and intervention is designed to pi-ovide rapid deliveryof more intensive, research-based interventions andpractices automatically to students who are not makingadequate progress with core instructional practicesalone. Tier 2 also offers differentiation and targetedinstruction to students who can benefit from accelera-tion, not just those experiencing difficulty. The recom-mended standard is to provide supplemental, targetedinterventions and strategies for no more than 15% ofall students. It is important to emphasize again that tier2 is not defined by the location (general education, spe-cial education) or the person delivering the interven-tion (classroom teacher, special education teacher,gifted teacher) but by the intensity of the intervention,strategy, or technology.

In both Rtl and UDL frameworks, interventions aimto increase students' skills and knowledge by providingmore intensive and targeted instruction matched to stu-dent needs. To close achievement gaps, important com-ponents of intervention typically consist of moreexplicit instruction, scaffolding, opportunities for thestudent to practice and respond, and additional motiva-tional strategies. Within UDL and technology, more tar-geted use of technologies may be implemented. That is,if specific instructional technologies are used in tier 1for all students, those same technologies can be usedwith more explicit instruction or with additional tech-nologies. For example, if all students are provided cal-culators for solving routine arithmetic calculations, tier2 interventions may include explicit instruction in how

to use calculators more efficiently through tutoring orcoaching sessions on strategy use and/or additionaltechnologies such as calculators with more functions, orcalculators with multiple-line screens to keep bettertrack of inputs may be substituted. Tier 2 interventionsshould be considered supplemental to (in addition tocore instruction), not in place of, core instruction.Typically, tier 2 interventions and supports are providedto small groups of students (versus individually) inorder to be efflcient and cost-effective. In best practices,interventions are provided fluidly and flexibly, based onstudent needs, and are delivered through collaborationbetween teacher teams.

At tier 2, progress monitoring also intensiñes, withstudent progress monitored at least weekly to ensurethat interventions are sufficiently strong to be accelerat-ing progress. Both frequent progress monitoring and theuse of pre-determined decision-making rules are criticalto avoid the problem of continuing to use interventionpractices that are not responsive to student needs.Recommended practice is to use collaborative teaming(e.g., grade-level teams at elementary, teaching teams atmiddle school) for teachers to review student progressdata at least monthly to (a) modify and strengtheninterventions and strategies and (b) allow for flexiblegrouping and teacher collaboration to meet studentneeds.

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized InterventionThe primary feature of interventions provided at tier

3 is individualization of interventions, based on prob-lem solving and student progress data. The most inten-sive and individualized intervention is provided only tostudents who need this level of support, typicallydefined as no more than 5% of students. Tier 3 is not aplace (special education, gifted program, ELL classroom)or a person (special educator). Instead, it is deflned byintensity and individualized supports needed to acceler-ate student progress. Typically, intensity has beendefined by the specialized nature of interventions, tech-nologies, or strategies, the specialized nature of trainingto provide the intervention, or the amount of timeneeded to show progress, and so on. In an ecologicalapproach, all school staff members collaborate to sup-port all students, and resources are directed based ondemonstrated student need.

When data indicate that students need the mostintensive level of support to accelerate progress, a refer-ral may be initiated to determine eligibility to receivespecific services such as special education or giftededucation. Ideally, this evaluation is not focused ondemonstrating that a student is "non-responsive" andsubsequently a qualifying "non-responder," eligible forspecial education. Consistent with the focus of the law.


the emphasis of evaluation and decision making shouldbe on (a) identifying the specialized instruction, sup-port,] technology, and so on, that has been shown toaccelerate progress and (b) translating this support intoa functional IEP. At tier 3, frequent progress monitoringand parent involvement in decision making are key tobest practices as well as to meet federal and staterequirements (Barnett et al., 2007).

Special Education Within a Tiered ModelWe believe the notions of Rtl should be evaluated and

revised to be more rapidly responsive to all students,both high and low performers, those with disabilities,and those with other diverse learning needs. Withinthis réévaluation, it is necessary to clarify the relation-ship! between tier 3 supports and special education.Specifically, we must acknowledge that special educa-tion is not, and should not, be viewed as a place or aperson (a possible misconception within the field ofpractice).

Special education is a service that provides speciallydesigned instruction. Specifically, IDEA states that spe-cial education is "specially designed instruction, at nocost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a childwith' a disability" (§300.26). Moreover, IDEA clearlydefines specially designed instruction as

means of adapting, as appropriate to the needs ofan eligible child under this part, the content,methodology, or delivery of instruction, (i) toaddress the unique needs of the child that resultfrom the child's disability, (ii) to ensure access ofthe child to the general curriculum, so that thechild can meet the educational standards withinthe jurisdiction of the public agency that applies toall students. [§300.26(b) (3)]

Within IDEA, it is clear that special education is pro-vided for students with disabilities. The qualifying term"disabilities" is also defined within the law. Thus,within our ecological view of Rtl, a student with a dis-ability may receive tier 3 supports; however, there maybe other students with diverse learning needs who alsorequire tier 3 supports but do not qualify for special edu-cation because they do not have a disability. Forinstance, students may require tier 3 supports becausethey'are ELLs and have difficulty with the primary lan-guage of the school. Additionally, students may receivetier 3 supports because they are gifted and their per-forniance is well above that of their peers in science ormath.

Again, the premise of the framework is to provide suc-cess for all students. This principle does not segregatelearders based on diversity of need. A comprehensivesystem provides the instruction and supports for thosewho need it, regardless of need. Such a system must be

flexible enough to provide a proactive learning envi-ronment that uses scientifically based instruction andpurposeful instructional design, which includes tech-nology supports, and, when necessary, responds rapidlyto individual student needs. This type of frameworkallows for a student with a disability to receive special-ized instruction for a particular need (intensive readinginstruction delivered by a special education teacher)while only receiving technology supports for other areas(e.g., mathematics instruction). Similarly, a studentidentified as gifted may receive acceleration or enrich-ment in mathematics but require little support in lan-guage arts.

QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONSFOR THE FIELD

Integration of UDL principles and technology into anecological Rtl framework raises several implications andquestions related to practice, personnel preparation,research, and policy. We have begun to identify some ofthese implications and questions and present them inthe following.

Implications for PracticeFrom the experience of many large-scale state-level

implementation efforts of Rtl, several practice implica-tions have been noted as critical to sustain a high levelof implementation (Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden,2007). Commonly cited recommendations for imple-mentation include using teams as structures at district,school, and teaching levels; using implementation toolsto support consensus building, planning, and sustain-ing practices; sustaining leadership for implementation;and using high-quality, imbedded professional develop-ment and coaching to sustain practices at the classroomlevel.

These same recommendations can be applied toimplementation of UDL practices in a systematic way.Too often in education, new practices or strategies havebecome "fads" that are not fully implemented and sup-ported. Implementation research (e.g., Fixsen et al.,2005) has made it clear that key practices, consistentwith those noted previously, are essential to sustainimplementation. An ecological framework for Rtl andUDL requires a systematic, large-scale look at school-wide practices and structures to support students.Implementation cannot occur in a piecemeal fashion,one classroom at a time, or one student at a time.

Building flexibility into Rtl decision making. Inorder to have an ecological, multi-tiered system of sup-port that meets the needs of all students, school systemsmust consider mechanisms that address the variabilityof student supports based on their changing needs.Although Rtl proponents often fall within either a


"standard protocol" or a "problem-solving" instruc-tional decision-making camp (Fuchs et al., 2010), thisdistinction may not he necessary. School districtsshould consider a hybrid solution that includes ateam-based problem-solving approach along with theuse of scientiñcally validated instructional practices inorder to reduce the rigidity of decisions related toinstruction, placement, and general student supports.Simply stated, although many Rtl models attempt tosimplify Rtl decision making through the use of stan-dardized decision protocols, we helieve that Rtl deci-sion-making protocols need to allow for team-basedproblem solving that includes contextual variables.School teams must have access to tools and supportsthat provide for data-hased decision making. Forinstance, as previously mentioned, K-12 entities (pos-sibly through university partnerships) should provideteachers with access to research databases. Such accessenables school teams to have the most up-to-dateresearch across multiple journals to search and locatescientifically hased solutions.

Another means of supporting this work is the devel-opment of instructional toolkits that use UDL-hasedinstructional design. Such toolkits should be designedto help scaffold decision making related to instruc-tional, behavioral, and environmental supports so thatscientifically based instructional practices, learningstrategies, technology supports, and other environ-mental considerations are addressed to support groupas well as individual student needs across tiered instruc-tion and intervention.

For example, instructional toolkits around mathe-matics could include suggestions about how to differ-entiate based on UDL and use various scientificallybased instructional strategies and available technologysupports for core curriculum at tier 1 instruction for allstudents. This same toolkit could include informationon progress monitoring specific to that core curriculumin order to identify students who could benefit fromtier 2 supports. For tier 2, the toolkit could guide teach-ers towards specific strategies related to the mathematicconcepts and problem solving, as well as more specifictechnologies and other instructional supports. Finally,information can be presented about how to intensifythe intervention and technology supports for studentswho may need tier 3 supports within that mathematicscontent.

Collaboration among educators and related servicepersonnel.'Tieied instruction and interventions, hy pro-viding increasingly more individualized and explicitsupports, require a range of professional expertise.Many current Rtl frameworks rely on an integrated,flexible system that includes all educators in general

. education, special education, gifted education, and edu-

cation of ELLs. If we consider tiered supports in a moreflexible and fluid system in which instructional plan-ning includes access considerations throughout thetiers, there is much greater need for collaboration inproviding more interdisciplinary instruction. An inte-grated, ecological approach to Rtl and UDL requiresclassroom teachers, special educators, instructionaltechnology specialists, AT specialists, and related serv-ices providers to collaborate to provide more interdisci-plinary, fluid, and flexible supports hased on data. Theresulting work will logistically require administrativesupport and flexible scheduling for planning time andcollaborative teaching.

Ongoing, focused teacher supports. The need forinterdisciplinary collaboration can only occur withdistrict- and schoolwide teacher support in buildingprofessional capacity. Just-in-time or on-demand pro-fessional development (PD) and ongoing support mustaccompany this ecological Rtl/UDL framework. Such PDmust include not only conceptual understanding ofUDL and its integration into Rtl, hut also practical sup-ports (e.g., suggestions for how to use the toolkit) toassist in day-to-day problem solving, instructionaldesign, and decision making through scaffolded teachersupports, such as instructional coaching.

Systemic investment in supporting comprehensiveUDL-based Rtl frameworks. For a districtwide ecologi-cal Rtl framework to work effectively, there must be sys-tematic investment in capacity building. At the districtand school level, administrative supports would includeinvestment in instructional technologies that allow forenhanced learning at all tiers. Along with these tech-nologies, it would he necessary to invest in curriculardesign and other materials that allow for UDL. Further,such an investment in technologies and curricula musthe accompanied hy supports (including previouslynoted professional development) so that the resultinginstruction is implemented with fidelity. Without sucha solid curricular and technology foundation, it wouldhe difficult for teachers to create universally designedinstruction and, thus, it would be difficult to accuratelyassess the supports needed for students with variousinstructional needs.

Universal screening. A major cornerstone of Rtl isdecision making hased on data gathered through uni-versal screening, repeatahle assessments that are givento all students in order to gain information about theirperformance in age-appropriate skills, such as oral read-ing fluency and math computation. When consideringits use in a system that integrates UDL into the Rtlframework, questions emerge about how to utilize uni-versal screening in a manner that is consistent withUDL. For example, assessments would need to includeoptions for students who are ELLs or students who can-

Leawing Disability Quarterly 252

not access traditionally administered assessments.Simply stated, questions remain about how universalscreening can make considerations for multiple meansfor representation, expression, and engagement.

Implications for Personnel PreparationFor Rtl and UDL practices to be fully and effectively

implemented in schools, it is essential that the con-tent ¡be embedded in educator preparation programs,including PK-12 educators, special educators, admin-istrators, and related services personnel such as speech-language specialists, school psychologists, and coun-selors. Without this more proactive focus on educatorpreparation, there will be an increased need for con-tinued professional development to "catch up" existingschool personnel in these practices. Thus, recent reportshave not been positive regarding the extent to whichthis content is included in teacher preparation pro-grams (Sailor, 2008).

All preparation programs should incorporate impor-tant ¡core content within Rtl and UDL practices, in-cluding understanding of tiers of instruction and inter-vention; knowledge of scientifically based approachesand methods for determining research support; knowl-edge' of assessment practices, including universalscreening, data-based progress monitoring, assessinginstruction, and functional assessment; collaborativeteaming; use of problem-solving practices; and imple-menting UDL-based instructional design that uses pur-poseful differentiated instruction.

In addition, different preparation programs wouldneed a more intensive focus on certain practices. Forexample, school leadership preparation would includea stronger focus on instructional leadership, flexiblescheduling, and supporting technology capacity. Allteacher preparation programs would include more of afocus on instructional strategies, technology supports,and UDL. While having a focus similar to that of theirgeneral education counterparts, special education pro-grams should also offer more specific knowledge aboutscientifically based individualized strategies, technol-ogy supports, and assistive technology as well as howto conduct base-level usability testing. Finally, schoolpsychology and other related services personnel prepa-ration programs would include more of a focus on data-based decision-making practices.

Research ImplicationsA great deal of research has shown the positive effects

of implementing a comprehensive approach to Rtl(e.g.i Burns et al., 2005; Jimerson et al., 2007).However, as we have suggested an ecological frame-work for Rtl that integrates UDL-based instructionalplanning and content delivery, research should addresshow' these two frameworks integrate. Broad research

questions include development of integrated modelsand tools incorporating Rtl and UDL practices andinvestigation of factors that sustain or inhibit compre-hensive implementation, including the following:

• What supports are needed to implement an eco-logical Rtl framework?

• How can various types of research (e.g., design-based research) be used in developing effectiveenvironments?

• How do we measure the degree to which instruc-tional design and delivery integrate UDL princi-ples?

• How can we measure a system's capacity and readi-ness to implement an ecological Rtl framework?

Policy ImplicationsFully integrating the principles of UDL with Rtl at all

levels, including national, state, district, school, class-room, and individual, has several policy implications.First, there is a need to more fully integrate principlesacross practices within policy documents and recom-mendations. Ideally, reauthorization of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act will incorporate and inte-grate key principles fundamental to both Rtl and UDL,as both are founded in effective core instructional prac-tices to ensure success of more students. At all policylevels, there is a need to continue to bring togethergroups that represent different constituencies and dif-ferent perspectives, to incorporate shared thinking andshared principles, and to avoid the continued isolationand "silos" that exist across groups.

State-level policy must proactively address implica-tions of a flexible, needs-based system. Issues needingdiscussion at a state level include assessment systems,support for implementation, support for technology,and licensure. At district and school levels, educators,in collaboration with community partners, will need todevelop methods for communication and consensusbuilding to incorporate key principles in practice.Important decisions such as scheduling, personneldecisions, and assignment of personnel will need to beexamined to ensure that practices support a compre-hensive model that is flexible and student-needs based.

, Too often, practices continue to be based on what hasbeen done historically, not on what is effective orneeded for students.

These policy initiatives are heavily tied to financialsupports for students receiving instruction, interven-tion, and supports through the tiers. In order for thisflexible, ecological structure of support to work effec-tively, policy must address means for more flexibility instate and district spending for students both with andwithout disabilities. The current spending flexibilitywithin IDEA (2004) allows 15% of funding to address


needs of students at risk for academic failure. Policymust ensure.that students with disabilities receive freeand appropriate public education (FAPE) within theLRE from well-prepared, specialized professionals,while at the same time not allowing students to fallthrough the cracks because of inadequate frameworks ofservice delivery due to funding. Other industrializedcountries have shown how a greater emphasis on edu-cation requires a modernized funding system (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Thus, federal, state, and local policymust reflect the need for a more ecologically basededucational system.

FINAL THOUGHTSAt this time, many of the implementation descrip-

tions and tools for Rtl do not explicitly include UDLinstructional design principles and practices with pur-poseful use of technology in the written descriptions.We believe Rtl approaches would be enhanced throughmore explicit inclusion of UDL instructional design andpractices.

Based on this belief, we have embarked on a field-based project with Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) todevelop an ecological framework for Rtl and UDL imple-mentation. CPS has had a district-wide model for a com-prehensive approach to tiers of instruction andintervention for academics and behavior, called Pyramidof Interventions. Like many districts, CPS has beenimplementing several components of Rtl, UDL, and PBISpractices (PBIS is known in the district as Positive SchoolCulture), but they had not yet been integrated into acomprehensive and supported set of practices.

Our collaboration includes key partners in CPS fromgeneral education, special education (including relatedservices personnel), and gifted education, and partnersin University of Cincinnati represent the same groups.Training modules and strategies to support implemen-tation are being developed during the 2010-2011 schoolyear. As this collaborative effort continues, we aim tostudy this framework and share results with othersinterested in integrating Rtl and UDL.

We encouragé others to embark on designing, imple-menting, and investigating ecological frameworks thatconsider how various elements, including UDL andfocused technology use, can support students across thetiers of instruction and intervention. An Rtl frameworkthat only considers instructional strategies is missingthe complexity of student success. An ecological Rtlframework that provides a more systemic view is impor-tant to supporting the diverse nature of student needs.Moreover, a purposeful framework that aligns the vari-ous components and practices already existing withintoday's schools (e.g., Rtl, UDL, instructional technol-ogy, differentiation, assistive technology, PBIS) provides

for a more streamlined environment for practitionersand a more seamless experience for students.

REFERENCESBarnett, D. W., Hawkins, R. O., Prasse, D., Macmann, G., Graden,

J. L., Nantais, M., & Pan, W. (2007). The handbook of response tointervention: The science and practice of assessment and interven-tion. Decision making validity in response to intervention (pp. 106-116). New York: Springer Science Inc.

Basham, J., & Gardner, J. (2010). Measuring universal design forlearning. Special Education Technology Practice, 12{2), 15-19.

Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F.,Prasse, D., Reschly, D. J., Schräg, J., & Tilly, W. D. Ill (2005).Response to intervention: Policy considerations and Implementation.Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors ofSpecial Education.

Boyle, E. A., Rosenberg, M. S., Connelly, V. J., Washburn, S. G.,Brinckerhoff, L. C, & Banerjee, M. (2003). Effects of audio textson the acquisition of secondary-level content by students withmild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 203-214.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research:Examining field-based and research-implemented models.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.

Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of prevention in psychiatry. New York:Basic Books.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2008). Universal design forlearning guidelines version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.

Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Conceptual con-fusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifyingmeaningful differences. Communique, 34, 1-7.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: HowAmerica's commitment to equity will determine our fiitiire. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross. C. T. (2002). Minority students in specialand gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students withmild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Students, 32(9), 1-24.

Edyburn, D. L. (2004). Rethinking assistive technology. SpecialEducation Technology Practice, 5(4), 16-23.

Edyburn, D. L. (2006a). Evaluating academic performance: Withand without technology. MACUL Journal, 26(4), 26-27, 48.

Edyburn, D.L. (2006b). Failure is not an option: Collecting,reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology toenhance academic performance. Learning and Leading withTechnology, 34(1), 20-23

Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design forLearning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions inthe second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1),33-41.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., &Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the lit-erature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la ParteFlorida Mental Health Institute, The National ImplementationResearch Network (FMHI Publication #231). RetrievedNovember 1, 2009, from http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/ pdf/monograph_full.pdf.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The blurring ofspecial education in a new continuum of general educationplacements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star,J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting stiidents struggling with math-ematics: Response to Intervention (Rtl) for elementary and middleschools (NCEE 2009 4060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department


of Éducation, Institute of Education Sciences, National Centerfor education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L.,Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting sbidentsstruggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tierintervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide(NCEE 2009- 4045). Washington, DC: National Center forEducation Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute ofEducation Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrievedfrom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

Gordon, R. S. (1983). An operational classification of disease pre-verition. Public Health Reports, 48, 107-109.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315).Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/heaO8/index.html/.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as amended), 20U.sic. Sec. 1401 et seq.

Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds.).(2O07). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and prac-tice\of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.

Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerationswith Response to Intervention models. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 41(1), 108-117.

Lowrey, A. L. & Basham, J. D. (2010). Individualized educationprograms (IEPs). In T. C. Hunter, J. C. Carper, T. J. Lasley, & C.D. Raisch (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational reform and dissent(pp'. ?-?). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marstpn, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in Responsiveness to .Intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilitiesidehtification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6),53^-544.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multiple learning (2nd ed.). New York:Cambridge University Press.

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2009). UDLassociated research evidence. Retrieved July 23, 2010, fromhttp://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110.

Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Wojcik, B. W., & Bardi, N.(2007). Monitor that progress! Interpreting data trends for ATdecision-making. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(7), 22-29.

President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education.(2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for students and

their families. Available at http:/www.ed.gov/inits/commisionsboards/whspecialeducation/

Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastriopieri, M., & Chung, Y. (2009).Who is using assistive technology in schools? Journal of SpecialEducation Technology, 24{\), 1-13.

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistivetechnology and universal design for learning: Two sides of thesame coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgiris, & R. Boone (Eds.),Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp.33-41). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digi-tal age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Sailor, W. (2008). Access to the general education: Systems changeor tinker some more? Research and Practice for Persons with SevereDisabilities, 33(4), 249-257.

Schneps, M. H., O'Keeffe, J. K., Heffner-Wong, A., & Sonnert, G.(in press). Using span-limiting technologies to support close-reading in STEM. Journal of Special Education Technology.

Spectrum K12. (2010). 2010 Response to Intervention adoption sur-vey.http://www.spectrumK12.com/rti/the_rti_corner/rti_adoption_report

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2002). The evolution of discipline prac-tices: School-wide positive behavior support. Child and FamilyBehavior Therapy, 24, 23-50.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach forexpanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior sup-port. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S.(2007). A three-tier model for preventing reading difficultiesand early identification of students with reading disability. InD. H. Haager, S. Vaughn, &J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Validated read-ing practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 11-28). Baltimore:Brookes.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design,expanded 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Yell, M. L., (2006). The law and special education (2nd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Please address correspondence about this article to: James Basham,School of Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH45221; e-mail: [email protected]


Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI: EMBEDDING · PDF fileA COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI: EMBEDDING UNIVERSAL ... ¡as a means to achieving high-quality instruction ... coming barriers