RTI and Phonics Instruction: Best Practices for In-class Interventions
Capstone, Fall 2015
Vanderbilt University
Boram Ku
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
2
Abstract
According to the International Reading Association (2010), now called the
International Literacy Association, Response to Intervention (RTI) was developed upon the
idea of prevention instead of failure. It is an inclusive, systematic, and multi-tiered approach
in identifying students with language and literacy needs and supporting these students with
differentiated assessment and instruction. Because RTI is a comprehensive, systematic
approach, teachers and staff providing interventions require professional development and
training. This capstone explores the RTI framework, its place in literacy instruction, and the
two approaches to RTI assessments: the standard treatment protocol approach and the
problem-solving approach. RTI begins with assessments to identify students who are at-rish
for reading delays, as well as integrates it throughout the process in using assessment data to
drive instructional decisions. This capstone also explores and current best practices teachers
can implement in the classroom for RTI Tier 2 interventions, specifically in phonics. Phonics
instruction has been the subject of much contention over the years, with differing views on
how and when to teach it. Researchers debated over how explicit or implicit phonics
instruction should be, or how much emphasis should be given to phonics versus meaning
making. This capstone examines the discourse surrounding phonics instruction and provides
instructional strategies in the context of small group, RTI instruction using a systematic,
explicit approach.
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
3
Introduction
Response to Intervention (RTI) is a systematic approach for teachers to assess and
identify students with reading difficulties, as well as provide early intervention for students
who are at risk (Gersten & Dimino, 2006). The process of assessing and instructing usually
involves a support team of literacy coaches, instructional specialists, and highly skilled
teachers. For teachers who are not provided with such instructional supports, the process of
assessing, instructing, and intervening may be overwhelming.
This capstone explores the two assessment approaches to RTI as well as instructional
views within the RTI framework. This capstone further examines RTI in literacy instruction,
specifically in phonics and word recognition instruction. The intention is to focus on RTI
strategies that will target foundational literacy areas of needs for young learners as early
intervention purposes. According to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (2010), the
two Reading foundational skills for second grade include phonics and word recognition, and
fluency. According to What Works Clearinghouse, Tier 2 interventions should consist of
instruction on up to three foundational reading skills, which include phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension for grade 2 (Gersten, et al, 2008). Because Tier 2 and Tier 3
interventions target specific literacy and language needs based off of assessment data, one
strategy may be appropriate for one student, but not for another. Assessments must be used to
determine these areas of need, an element that can be overlooked in the context of universal
screeners. Based off of assessment data, teachers are then able to implement current best
practices for phonics and word recognition strategies, based off of evidence-based academic
interventions. Phonics and word recognition instruction is important in the early grades, and
this capstone provides strategies for teachers to bring phonics and word recognition
instruction into the RTI instructional space.
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
4
RTI in Literacy
According to the International Reading Association (2010), now called the
International Literacy Association, RTI is constructed upon the idea of prevention instead of
failure. The concept of RTI begins with the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and our nation’s accountability standards. While each state has its own educational
standards and assessments to measure student progress, NAEP provides a national standard to
systematically measure educational progress across the country. The results of these
measures influenced the educational initiative referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA). Under the
NCLB law, Reading First is a federal education program that provides funding for reading
programs based on scientific research. While the goal of Reading First is in prevention of
later reading difficulties for grades K through 3, RTI targets students who already exhibit
delays in learning to read early on (McCormick & Zutell, 2005).
With higher academic accountability leading to an increase in the number of students
being identified for and served in special education, the need for better eligibility process and
early intervention also rose (Johnston, 2011; McCormick & Zutell, 2005). RTI uses early
intervention to attempt to reduce the number of students being identified for special education
with the use of a tier system. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2007), the purpose of RTI is to
differentiate between inadequate instruction and disability as the cause for low student
achievement, and serve as an important prevention function. As research shows, relatively
few students who have language and literacy difficulty have specific learning disabilities, and
RTI is a framework to help identify and support students (International Reading Panel, 2010).
If all students receive high quality instruction and a student responds poorly, then the RTI
framework can provide evidence for disability as the cause for poor academic growth, as
opposed to instructional quality being the cause.
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
5
In literacy today, RTI is an inclusive, systematic, and multi-tiered approach in
identifying students with language and literacy needs and supporting these students with
differentiated assessment and instruction. RTI specifically targets students who exhibit delays
in learning to read early on, or show strong possibilities of delays (McCormick & Zutell,
2010). The standard three-tier model of RTI includes Tier 1 (primary prevention), Tier 2
(secondary prevention), and Tier 3 (tertiary prevention) (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007).
In Tier 1, students receive high-quality evidence-based general reading instruction,
which should be provided by qualified professionals (International Reading Association,
2010; National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE], 2005).
Universal screening is used for all students to gather data and progress monitoring is used for
“at risk” students. Students in this tier receive supplemental group interventions, and
depending on progress, the student is either returned to the classroom or moved to Tier 2 for
further supports. In Tier 2, students who require targeted instruction in specific areas of need
based on diagnostic assessments receive small-group tutoring and are evaluated to determine
responsiveness. Some ways in which instruction is intensified from Tier 1 to Tier 2, include
using more teacher-centered, systematic instruction, conducting instruction more frequently,
adding to the duration of instruction, creating smaller homogenous student groupings, or
relying on expert instructors (McCormick & Zutell, 2010). In Tier 3, students received
intensive, individualized interventions, in addition to instruction in the general curriculum,
and evaluation takes place for specific disability identification (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007;
McCormick & Zutell, 2010). Throughout this multi-tiered approach, students are assessed
and provided instruction based on assessment data.
Johnston (2011) discusses the trend of RTI focusing on identification at the expense
of instruction. RTI can be viewed either in terms of identification as a measurement problem,
or in terms of prevention as an instructional problem, with each requiring different tools and
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
6
strategies. While this capstone focuses instructional strategies for RTI in the area of phonics,
it is important to mention assessments, as they are an integral part of the RTI process.
Two Approaches to RTI Assessments
In RTI, assessment is integrated throughout the process because it begins with
identification and involves progress monitoring as an essential instructional component
throughout the process (Tackett, K. K., Roberts, G., Baker, S., & Scammacca, N., 2009). The
assessment system is comprised of screening, diagnostics, formative progress monitoring,
benchmark progress monitoring, and summative outcome assessments.
Universal screeners are used to indentify struggling students with general or partial
measures to determine reading performance. At the beginning of the year and also throughout
the year, students are screened on basic literacy skills and compared with benchmark scores
to determine which students require support. Schools that have adopted the Reading First
program, and most other schools, have already identified a literacy screening (e.g., AIMSweb
or DIBELS) (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2009).
Universal screeners alone, however, are not enough. Once initial screeners are
administered, most schools often skip the important step of further diagnosis before placing
students in their tiers (Lipson, Chomsky-Higgins & Kanfer, 2011). Further assessments
provide specific information on an individual’s reading abilities needed to determine the most
appropriate intervention (Wixson & Valencia, 2011). Diagnostics is a key step in identifying
targeted areas of need, which aligns with a problem-solving approach, rather than a standard
treatment protocol. The diagnostic element of RTI allows schools and teachers to begin with
a standard protocol for efficiency purposes, but further identify specific needs by problem
solving.
The Standard Treatment Protocol Approach is an approach in which all students
receive the same intervention. Universal screeners are used for initial screening purposes to
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
7
quickly identify students who are at risk. These students are then placed in groups for
interventions for a trial of fixed duration (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Students who are identified
as at-risk and placed in Tier 2 receive the same intervention. Unfortunately, the standard
treatment protocol approach can call for assessments such as the number of words read
correctly in one minute (CWPM), but with short interventions, it may not provide enough
time for accurate measurement. Quite often, the standard treatment protocol puts emphasis on
measurement rather than instruction (Johnston, 2011).
While standard approaches allow for efficiency and easy identification, it is not
enough to identify targeted areas of need. According to Till (2002), the ideal RTI model is
comprised of highly qualified teachers using problem-solving methods to drive instructional
decisions for struggling students. These student support teams use a variety of assessment
measures to progress monitor student achievement, and make instructional decisions.
The Problem-solving Approach involves a team that analyzes a problem and helps
the teacher “select, implement, and monitor the effectiveness of an intervention” (Fuchs &
Fuchs, 2006). Unlike the standard treatment protocol approach, the problem-solving approach
involves practitioners determining the problem, analyzing its causes, designing goal-directed
intervention, implementation, monitoring of student progress, modifying the interventions as
needed, and evaluating effectiveness (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012).
While this approach is most effective in identifying and targeting specific areas of need, one
area of weakness is in requiring considerable expertise among practitioners (Fuchs & Fuchs,
2006). Johnston (2011) also argues that in practice, problem-solving approaches often include
standardized components, especially in the use of curriculum-based measurements such as
the CWPM used in the standard treatment protocol approach. Rather than using RTI as a
discrepancy model for only identifying students with special needs, it is a process to measure
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
8
whether well-defined, scientifically based interventions improve a student’s academic
performance (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2009).
According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2002),
children require strong listening and speaking skills, well-developed phonological and print
awareness, knowledge of letter-sound relationships (decoding), large vocabularies,
comprehension skills, and fluency. These language and literacy skills align with the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) foundational reading skills for grade 2, which include phonics
and word recognition, and fluency.
Phonics Instruction
The National Reading Panel (2000) lists phonics as one of the five essential
components of reading instruction. Phonics refers to correlating letters with sounds, or
grapheme-phoneme correspondences. These letter-sound relationships are used to encode the
spoken components of language and recognize words (Mesmer & Griffith, 2005). The goal of
phonics instruction is for students to be able to know and use the alphabetic code for reading
and comprehending text. Marilyn Adams (2001) states that while phonics is merely one
component of reading, and though the ultimate goal of reading is to make meaning, reading
begins with the letters and print on a page. It is important for students to be able to transform
print to language to make meaning of the text.
Goodman (1994) views reading as a transactional process between the reader and the
text. The reader interacts with the text and constructs meaning by selectively using
graphophonic, syntactic, and semantic cues in the text. Reading is making meaning beyond
the text as readers use the three cuing systems to make predictions and inferences about the
text. Phonics, or graphophonics, is only one of the three cuing systems used in identifying
words and making meaning of the whole text (Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998).
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
9
The rhetoric surrounding phonics instruction has been polarizing in the past, as whole
language versus phonics. There has been much debate and discourses surrounding the
phonics only, or phonics first, approach, and whether phonics should be taught in context or
in isolation (Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998). While researchers, have different
perspectives on the reading process, they all acknowledge the role that phonics has in word
recognition and comprehension. According to Anderson et al. (1985), “the issue is no longer,
as it was several decades ago, whether children should be taught phonics. The issues now are
specific ones of just how it should be done” (p. 36). There are two different approaches to
phonics instruction (implicit vs. explicit), as well as two approaches in lesson delivery
(intrinsic vs. systematic).
Implicit vs. Explicit Phonics Instruction
In implicit, or analytic phonics instruction, letter sounds are never produced
separately. Instead, students are given words with targeted sounds and gain a sense of this
sound from exposure (McCormick & Zutell, 2010). Students learn letter-sound relationships
inductively by analyzing known words (Anderson et al., 1985). With analytic phonics, once a
word is identified, students analyze the letter-sound relations. In this approach, letter sounds
are produced within a context of words because some sounds are difficult to produce in
isolation, which can then lead to confusion when decoding words. (McCormick & Zutell,
2010; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000). Students use letter-sound
correspondences as well as context cues to indentify unfamiliar words they encounter in
authentic texts and activities (National Reading Panel, 2000).
One argument against implicit phonics instruction is that it places emphasis on
phoneme segmentation, or the ability to separate speech sounds in spoken words. Anderson
(1985) states that many young children have difficulty singling out individual sounds from
hearing it within a word. Without previous knowledge of letter-sound relationships, sounds
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
10
within words is not enough for students to easily distinguish sounds and use them (Adams,
1990; McCormick & Zutell, 2010).
In explicit, or synthetic, phonics instruction, students produce sounds of letters that
appear in isolation and then blend the sounds together to form recognizable words (National
Reading Panel, 2000; Anderson et al., 1985). The teacher initially articulates letter sounds in
isolation by converting letters into sounds or phonemes, and then has students practice them
in both isolation and in the context of words (McCormick & Zutell, 2010).
Incidental vs. Systematic Phonics Instruction
Incidental, or embedded, phonics instruction refers to strategies that have not been
specifically taught, but can be inferred after extensive reading or writing experiences
(McCormick & Zutell, 2010). Mesmer and Griffith (2005) also refer this as the intrinsic, or
holistic, approach. Rather than setting aside a separate time for phonics practice, instruction
is embedded into ongoing reading and writing activities (Dahl, et al., 1999; Mesmer &
Griffith, 2005).
Systematic phonics instruction, on the other hand, refers to a planned, sequential set
of phonics. Phonics is taught before sight words, separately from connected reading, and
instruction is sequenced and code driven (Chall, 1967; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005). According
to the National Reading Panel (2000), the focus of systematic phonics instruction is “on
helping children acquire knowledge of the alphabetic system and its use to decode new
words, and to recognize familiar words accurately and automatically” (p. 2-90). While some
word identification strategies may be incidental, struggling readers require intentional,
precise phonics instruction to move them through the alphabetic phase of word learning
(Ehri, 1991; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005).
Mesmer and Griffith (2005) conclude that a systematic approach to learning sounds,
combined with explicit instruction in learning to blend sounds, will lead to automaticity with
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
11
much practice. While explicit phonics instruction is important, students also need
opportunities to apply their understandings in authentic texts and writing tasks. One argument
against explicit phonics instruction is that it is difficult to say pure speech sounds in isolation.
This does not seem like a real problem, however, if the words students encounter are in
meaningful context. (Anderson et al., 1985). In other words, word identification strategy
instruction balanced with reading in meaningful texts is most beneficial for struggling readers
(Adams, 1990; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005; Anderson et al., 1985).
Phonics Instruction in RTI
According to the International Reading Association (2010), the guiding principles of
RTI include optimizing language and literacy instruction by providing increasingly
differentiated and intensified instruction. Instructional practices must be founded in researchbased strategies, taking into consideration not only the strategy, but also the learner and
context in which the strategy works as well.
Studies such as the Vellutino et al. study (2006) show that kindergarten and first grade
interventions can be useful in preventing early and long term reading difficulties for at-risk
children. As one of the pillars of literacy, phonics instruction plays an important role in
developing the foundational reading skills of struggling readers. The learner characteristics
depend on the students’ literacy experiences, and the learning traits of the phases of word
learning. Ehri and McCormick (1998) identify five phases of word learning: pre-alphabetic,
partial-alphabetic, full-alphabetic, consolidated alphabetic, and automatic.
In the pre-alphabetic phase, also referred to as the logographic phase (Ehnri, 1991),
children have limited knowledge of letters and the alphabetic principle. Typically for
preschool and kindergarten, children do not yet realize that letters in written words match
sounds in oral language (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). In the partial-alphabetic phase, also
referred to as rudimentary-alphabetic (Ehri, 1991), children are able to apply letter-sound
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
12
associations in a partial way. Students recognize more words than in the preceding phase, and
beginning and ending sounds are sometimes used for word recognition (McCormick &
Zutell, 2010). Students show characteristics of these two phases depending on their literacy
experiences, and they are commonly and naturally with preschool, kindergarten, and early
first-grade children. These traits can also be seen in older students who have reading delays
(McCormick & Zutell, 2010).
In the full-alphabetic phase, students begin to learn and use more letter-sound
relationships and words are identified through sound-symbol decoding as well as by sight. In
the consolidated-alphabetic phase, or the orthographic phase, students use common spelling
patterns to help them read words. In the automatic phase, students are able to recognize
most words at sight and use knowledge of the alphabetic principle to read unfamiliar words
(McCormick & Zutell, 2010).
The Full-Alphabetic Phase
The following strategies in phonics instruction targets phase 3, the full-alphabetic
phase. Typically, normally achieving second grade readers are characterized to be in the
consolidated-alphabetic phase, but those who are struggling may be in the full-alphabetic
phase (McCormick & Zutell, 2010). Ehri and McCormick (1998) identify this as a crucial
phase for students to acquire mature reading skills in order to move into the next two phases.
As RTI involves early intervention, full-alphabetic word learning strategies may be beneficial
for these students.
Explicit phonics instruction is more effective than implicit phonics instruction
because teaching rules and operations have pedagogical value in improving recoding skills
(Ehri, 1991). Explicit phonics instruction is even more effective when it is systematic. While
RTI instruction should be individualized to a specific learning need, but many reading
programs provide sequenced activities, adhering to the explicit, systematic approach to
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
13
phonics instruction. A systematic phonics instructional sequence includes teaching
consonants, short vowel sounds, onsets and rimes (phonograms), consonant clusters and
digraphs, long vowel sounds, r-controlled vowels, and special vowel combinations
(McCormick & Zutell, 2010). Effective phonics instruction is systematic, but at the same
time, instruction needs to meet learner’s needs in the framework of RTI. One way to
reconcile the two frameworks is in providing small-group, Tier 2 systematic phonics
instruction to students grouped by targeted skill or word learning phase needs.
Consonants: Composing Alliterations
First, read aloud an alliterative sentence and ask students to identify the consonant
sound heard at the beginning of each word (e.g., Tiny Timmy tied two toads together). Next,
students create their own alliterations, giving them practice with consonant sounds. Students,
or the teacher, should transcribe orally composed sentences. By including written words and
letters, students are able to further analyze letter-sound relations (McCormick & Zutell,
2010).
Teaching the Concept of Word
Once students have and understanding of letter sound relations, the ability to relate
words in the mind with words on the page develops the concept of word (Gillet, Temple,
Crawford, & Temple, 2011). The concept of word will later help students in their word
recognition ability because they will be able to focus on word units in print. One activity that
helps students develop this ability is Cut-Apart Words.
The Cut-Apart Words activity involves writing down a four- or five-word sentence as
a student recites it out loud. The teacher points to each word as he or she reads them out loud
several times. Then the words are cut apart, scrambled, and rearranged by the student (Gillet,
Temple, Crawford, & Temple, 2011). This activity pairs sounded out words with words in
print, as students manipulate individual words to recreate a sentence.
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
14
Word Identification Strategies
Word identification strategies help students read unfamiliar words independently and
make recall of words at sight easier. Word identification strategies, like word recognition,
facilitate comprehension because it allows students to read more (McCormick & Zutell,
2010). Word recognition strategies also help in decoding with ease and speed, and accelerate
reading acquisition (Adams, 1991; Stanovich, 1991). With phonics instruction and word
recognition strategies, students are able to apply their knowledge when decoding later in the
alphabetic phase. According to McCormick and Zutell (2010), the use of structural analysis
as a word identification strategy can be used to supplement phonics.
Word Sorts
Word sorts lessons require careful planning and forethought because teachers must
select words to be sorted and then prepare the necessary materials for the lesson (Mesmer &
Griffit, 2005). Word sort procedures are used to teach words that share phonogram patterns,
or word families. In this procedure, words from more than one word family are written on
cards, shuffled, and then sorted according to their families. Teachers must first demonstrate
the procedures of sorting cards into their word families, but once children understand the
procedure, this activity can be done in small groups, in pairs, or alone (Gillet, Temple,
Crawford, & Temple, 2011).
According to Mesmer and Griffith (2005), word sorts lessons highly engage
individuals by providing students with his or her own set of manipulatives. The use of
manipulatives makes learning concrete, and the act of sorting keeps students actively engaged
and accountable for their own learning. Throughout the lesson, students sort, re-sort, and
record words, and the targeted words or sounds follow a systematic progression based on
developmental spelling stages (Ganske, 2013).
Reading Stories Incorporating the Patterns Taught
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
15
While phonics should be taught systematically and explicitly, equally important to
keep a balanced approach with integrated activities. For example, after practicing r-controlled
vowel sounds, prepare a story with many words containing this vowel pattern. Have students
circle all the words with this pattern, and then read the story. The circled r-controlled vowel
sounds can be used as a scaffold to help students identify the words. (McCormick & Zutell,
2010).
Implications & Conclusions
Examining RTI and its place in literacy shows that RTI was created for the purposes
of early intervention. Moving away from a “wait-to-fail” model, the RTI approach uses
assessments for early identification and to plan instruction. McCormick and Zutell (2010),
however, identify four areas of concern regarding RTI.
First, the amount of testing required in the RTI framework takes away from time
spent on instruction. Assessment and instruction require different tools and strategies, and
emphasizing one means limiting the other in time and resources (Johnston, 2011). Second,
the time period between assessments needs to be adequate to accurately determine students’
response to instruction. Third, the RTI plan requires complex management as well as skilled
professionals. One of the premises to the RTI plan is that all students receive high-quality
classroom instruction, and qualified professionals with appropriate expertise should provide
differentiated and intensified instruction (International Reading Association, 2010). In one
study, Vellutino and colleagues improved teacher expertise by training special intervention
teachers to work with small groups of at-risk kindergarten students, and the number of
students requiring support in first grade was greatly reduced (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, &
Fanuele, 2006). Fourth, the RTI plan requires funding and resources.
To better serve our students, instruction needs to be of high quality. When students
are not meeting academic standards, their areas of need should be met with assessment and
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
16
data-driven instruction decisions. With two different approaches in RTI, the standard
treatment protocol and problem-solving approach, one must consider what kinds of
assessments and instructional practices are used. While most gathering of data begins with
universal screeners, the key step in diagnostic assessments is critical in determining specific
areas of need in literacy and language. These diagnostic assessments reflect the nature of
problem solving and teachers can make better decisions to meet the needs of their students.
Some schools have adopted instructional programs to implement during RTI
interventions and instruction. Some schools have highly skilled support teams that assess,
analyze data, and provide instruction during intervention. Not all teachers, however, have
access to such programs, support teams, or instructional materials. For these teachers who
need to address instructional needs, particularly in phonics instruction for Tier 2 students,
strategies that focus on letter-sound correspondence and blending can benefit those needs.
While these strategies are foundational, they will later help in other areas of phonics such as
fluent word recognition and oral reading fluency.
The other components of literacy are equally important, however, and it is critical to
provide balanced instruction. Reading is more than decoding, and without comprehension,
meaning is not made. For grade 2, however, phonics and word recognition strategies are
considered to be foundational skills. While phonics instruction is most effective with it is
systematic and explicit, we also need to consider our learners and their differentiated needs.
The RTI framework allows teachers to identify at-risk students early and provide necessary
intervention and instruction. Assessments within the RTI framework are not only used for
early identification of at-risk students, but also to inform instructional decisions. In RTI
intervention, phonics instruction should be provided explicitly and systematically, with a
balance of integrate writing and reading activities, in order to meet children’s differentiated
needs.
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
17
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Adams, M. J. (2001). Alphabetic anxiety and explicit, systematic phonics instruction: A
cognitive science perspective. Handbook of early literacy research, 1, 66-80.
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report on the commission of
reading. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED253865.pdf
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and
strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). English Language Arts Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the
Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/2/
Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 383417). New York: Longman.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). What is scientifically based research on progress
monitoring? Washington, DC: National Center on Progress Monitoring, American
Institute for Research, Office of Special Education Programs.
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, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.
Fuchs, L. S. & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: A decade later. Journal of
Learning Disabilities 45(3), 195-203.
Ganske, K. (2013). Word journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and vocabulary
instruction. Guilford Publications.
Gillet, J. W., Temple, C. A., Crawford, A. N., & Temple, C. (2011).Understanding reading
problems: Assessment and instruction. Pearson Higher Ed.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan- Thompson, S., &
Tilly, W. 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
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
18
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Gersten, R. & Dimino, J. A. (2011) RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.
Goodman, K. S. (1994), Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional
sociopsycholinguistic view. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1093-1130). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
International Reading Association. (2010). Response to Intervention: Guiding principles
for educators from the International Reading Association[Brochure]. Newark: DE,
International Reading Association. Retrieved from
http://www.reading.org/Libraries/Resources/RTI_brochure_web.pdf
Lipson, M. Y., Chomsky-Higgins, P. & Kanfer, J. (2011). Diagnosis: The missing ingredient
in RTI assessment. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 204-208.
McCormick, S. & Zutell, J. (2010). Instructing students who have literacy problems. A. M.
Ramos (Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mesmer, H. A. E., & Griffith, P. L.. (2005). Everybody's Selling It: But Just What Is Explicit,
Systematic Phonics Instruction?. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 366–376. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/stable/20204360
Mesmer, E. M. & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2009). Response to Intervention (RTI): What teachers
of reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE], 2005). Response
to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Reports of the subgroups.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M. & Stahl, K. A. D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know
about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading research quarterly, 44(3), 338-355.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 418452). New York Longman.
Tackett, K. K., Roberts, G., Baker, S., & Scammacca, N. (2009). Implementing Response to
Intervention: Practices and perspectives from five schools. Frequently asked
questions. Portsmouth, NH: RMB Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Tilly, W. D. III. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving
Running Head: RTI and Phonics Instruction
19
enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology, 4th
ed. (pp. 21-36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention
as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities:
Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169.
Wanzek, J. & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading
intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 41(2), 126-142.
Wixson, K. K. & Valencia, S. W. (2011). Assessment in RTI: what teachers and specialists
need to know. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 466-469.