Comparing Tier 1 reading instruction with Tier 3 or special education intervention through an observational snapshot of school-implemented response to intervention across Grades 1–5

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
There is limited research about Tier 3 interventions provided during typical school Response to Intervention (RTI) implementation. As part of a larger RTI exploration study designed to focus on students with the most intensive reading needs, our goal was to contrast their Tier 1 core reading instruction with their Tier 3 intervention. Schools identified participating students as receiving Tier 3 or special education for reading. We aimed to provide a snapshot of differences in Tier 1 and intensive interventions delivered to 264 students from 32 elementary schools. Our research team used the Instructional Content Emphasis-Revised (ICE-R; Edmond & Briggs, 2003) to observe differences in group size and the amounts and types of curricular content (e.g., code vs. meaning-focused) students received during both tiers. We explored whether these patterns were consistent across Grades 1–5 and if they differed in relation to students’ disability (reading disability vs. other disability vs. no disability). We also examined whether the Tier 3 observation data was consistent with administrators’ reports about RTI implementation within their school. Across the grades, we found significantly more small-group than whole-class instruction during Tier 3 than in Tier 1. We observed significantly lower proportions of code-focused instruction than meaning-focused instruction, particularly during Tier 1. Generally, code-focused instruction decreased across the grades in both tiers. Although we found a trend suggesting students with reading disabilities may have received higher proportions of code-focused instruction than other students, this was not significant after multiple comparisons. We discuss some similarities and differences between our observations and administrator data. We discuss implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Funding Information
  • Southern Methodist University

This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit: