Response to Intervention (RTI):
Is There a Role for Assistive Technology?
By Dave L. Edyburn
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 focused national attention on the problems associated
with chronic under-achievement by students with disabilities. As federal and state governments
have sought to reorganize schools to address the problems of poor academic performance, a model
known as Response to Intervention (RTI) has gained favor. RTI models offer a mechanism for designing tiered interventions that become more intensive in response to persistent failure.
As states implement RTI models, it is essential to clarify the relationship of RTI to universal
design for learning (UDL) and assistive technology (AT). In particular, it is necessary to understand
when poor academic performance will trigger consideration of appropriate technology interventions.
Special Education Technology Practice
15
January/February 2009
What is RTI?
Response to intervention comes to education
from the field of health care. It is easy to understand the notion of intervention and intensive
services in the context of illness and disease. Lack
of response to an intervention requires new interventions of greater intensity.
In special education, RTI gained acceptance in
the area of positive behavior supports. In this context, Tier 1 involves providing appropriate schoolwide rules and supports to all students in order to
prevent behavior problems. However, we know
that these techniques will not be effective with all
students. Some students will make poor choices,
or otherwise fail to succeed, and therefore warrant
additional intervention (Tier 2). At this level, small
group interventions may assist some students’
needs and the problem will be solved. However,
a small percentage will demonstrate a persistent
need for intervention. These students would then
be provided with intensive and individualized
interventions (Tier 3). The general model is illustrated in Figure 1.
In recent years, some experts have been
advancing the argument that a key characteristic
of a learning disability is non-responsiveness to
instruction. That is, despite being provided the
opportunity to learn via high-quality instruction,
the student simply does not master the specific instructional objective. Rather than revert back to the
historical practice of removing struggling learners
from the general classroom, RTI seeks to enhance
classroom instruction through the implementation
of research-based instructional interventions (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007). These actions are
based on the assumption that we can prevent learning problems by providing high-quality instruction
to all students. However, by also implementing
progress monitoring, we can quickly determine if
any student is not benefitting from instruction and
work to provide additional, more intensive, interventions (Tier 2). At times there is some confusion
about RTI given its application in the context of
learning disabilities versus school-wide use.
framework, although models involving four or five
steps can also be found.
Hoover and Patton (2008) analyzed multiple
RTI models and summarized the key features of a
three tier model as follows:
Tier 1: High-quality core instruction
This refers to high-quality, research-based and
systematic instruction in a challenging curriculum in general education
Expected outcome: Students initially receive quality instruction and achieve expected academic
and behavioral goals in the general education
setting.
Tier 2: High-quality targeted supplemental instruction
This includes targeted and focused interventions to supplement core instruction.
Expected outcome: Students who do not meet
general class expectations and who exhibit need
for supplemental support receive more targeted
instruction. Learners may receive targeted, Tier
2 instruction in the general education classroom
or in other settings in the school such as a pullout situation; however, students receive various
types of assistance in terms of differentiations,
modifications, more specialized equipment,
and technology to target instructional needs.
Critical within Tier 2 is the documentation of a
student’s responses to the interventions used,
which serves as important prereferral decision-making data should more formal special
education assessment be determined necessary.
Students who make insufficient progress in Tier
2 are considered for more intensive specialized
interventions and/or formal special education
assessment.
Tier 3: High-quality intensive intervention
This includes more specialized interventions to
meet significant needs, including various disability needs.
The U.S. Department of Education does not
support any one model of RTI. As a result, a number of models have been developed to describe the
relationship between general and specialized interventions. In general, most models involve a tertiary
Special Education Technology Practice
Expected outcome: Tier 3 provides students who
have more significant needs with intensive,
evidence-based interventions within a range of
possible educational settings (pp. 196-197).
16
January/February 2009
Understanding Student
Performance Data From Three
Perspectives
Before examining how technology fits into RTI
models, it is necessary to understand that student
performance data is viewed differently in the
context of assistive technology, universal design for
learning, and RTI. This insight has important implications for understanding how and when technology might be viewed as a performance support
solution (Edyburn, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
In assistive technology, a concern about a
student’s performance is subjectively noted and
converted into a referral. A referral triggers an
assistive technology evaluation. Data may be collected at this point associated with the student’s
present level of performance and his or her performance with various assistive technology devices.
Ultimately, a device may be purchases based on
the recommendations of the evaluation. Typically,
followup and follow-along data are not collected
on a regular basis so it is difficult or impossible to
assess outcome. Assistive technology assessment
protocols tend to be informal inventories such as
the WATI Assessment (http://www.wait.org/
Products/pdf/Assessment_Forms_only.pdf) and
therefore do not integrate with school-wide performance data systems.
In RTI, data is routinely collected and evaluated. Universal screenings are administered to all
students in order to gain an early alert of students
who may struggle. Progress monitoring tools are
used to collect data at regular intervals and the
data are plotted. Performance is evaluated in terms
of the trend line and a goal line to provide visual
evidence about progress. Assessment protocols
are commercially available (http://www.studentprogress.org/chart/chart.asp) and are designed
to provide data at the school, classroom, and
individual student level. As a result, RTI provides
an excellent context for measuring student performance.
In current models of universal design for
learning, student performance data is not collected
or evaluated. Likewise, there are no assessment
systems to measure and report on student progress
in a universally designed learning environment.
Special Education Technology Practice
Where Does Technology Fit into
RTI Models?
Descriptions of RTI typically make little mention of technology. Unfortunately, this communicates a message that technology is not a core tool to
be used when designing interventions within each
tier. However, let’s consider three common forms
of technology and analyze their application within
RTI.
Universal Design for Learning
The emphasis of universal design for learning on proactively valuing differences makes it an
excellent Tier 1 strategy since it will enhance access
and performance for all students. Data from universal screenings will help instructional designers
build supports and scaffolds into the instructional
environment have the potential to prevent academic failure. As a result, it appears that universal design for learning and RTI can be aligned easily and
effectively. The shortcomings of universal design
for learning’s failure to provide student performance data are overlooked in favor of its contributions in the area of class-wide interventions.
Instructional Technology
Clearly there are many attributes (e.g., feedback, error correction, pedagogical agents) of
well-designed technology tools and online instructional materials that can support and engage
struggling learners. As a result, instructional
technology appears to have application in each RTI
tier. The primary challenge will be those associated with technology integration (i.e., identifying
instructional goals, searching for appropriate tools,
evaluating, purchasing, training, and routine use).
Instructional technologies may not include robust
data collection and student performance monitoring features. However, when they do, these types
of products are more likely to be readily adopted
by schools implementing RTI.
Assistive Technology
Given the problem that poor performance occurs in all three tiers, when does poor performance
trigger consideration of assistive technology?
Clearly, some forms of assistive technology (e.g.,
mobility aids, communication tools, motor and
17
January/February 2009
sensory access tools) should be provided outside
of the RTI model because it is clear that students
will not be able to access, engage, or benefit from
instruction in the general curriculum without these
tools.
Selected Resources for Learning
More About RTI
Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention
(RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Available
at: http://www.nrcld.org/rti_manual/
What happens when assistive technology (e.g.,
text to speech) is provided to all students in Tier 1?
This is a challenging question. In many respects,
this issue reflects the paradigm shift that is presently underway in the field of special education
technology and is being accelerated by the pressure
to close the achievement gap. However, by definition, it seems that when an assistive technology is
provided to all students, it ceases to be assistive
and becomes a universal design support. It seems
unlikely that assistive technology, as we now know
it, will play a fundamental role in RTI Tier 1.
Failure to perform as expected in Tier 1 can
serve as a trigger for assistive technology consideration and meets the definition of more intensive
interventions associated with Tier 2. Therefore,
consideration of assistive technology in Tier 2
seems to be appropriate. Edyburn (2007) has
argued that it is critical to ask the remediation vs.
compensation question: How do we determine
what percentage of time and effort to devote to remediation and what percentage of time and effort
to devote to compensation? That is, how do we decide if the best course of action is remediation (i.e.,
additional instructional time, different instructional
approaches) versus compensation (i.e., recognizing
that remediation has failed and that compensatory
approaches are needed to produce the desired level
of performance)? Because the question about remediation versus compensation is not asked routinely,
it is commonly assumed that the only solution is
to continue providing instruction and remediation.
This oversight must be challenged as RTI is implemented on larger scales.
When students advance to Tier 3 because of
their failure to meet performance expectations,
serious attention should be given to altering the
remediation vs. compensation equation so that the
vast majority of the time and effort (70-90%) are
devoted to enhancing performance through compensation with assistive technology. Two reasons illustrate why a change in strategy is need: (1) failure
to meet performance expectations at this point will
take away time from future learning opportunities and, (2) there is overwhelming evidence that
traditional instruction and remediation efforts
Special Education Technology Practice
National Center on Response to Intervention
http://www.rti4success.org
RTI Action Network
http://www.rtinetwork.org/
RTI Wire
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/
rti_wire.php
have failed to enable the individual to perform at a
satisfactory level.
Concluding Thoughts
A recent online survey conducted by the RTI
Action Network (http://www.rtinetwork.org/)
found that more than 80% of the 800 respondents
rated their knowledge about RTI as “minimal to
none.” As a result, much more work needs to be
done to build awareness about RTI and to train
teachers to utilize these types of methodologies.
Advocates of RTI typically have little experience with technology. As a result, technology is
not routinely consider to be an essential tool when
designing solutions for struggling students. Therefore, technology advocates will need to be much
more aggressive to ensure that technology tools
continue to be considered as part of the solution set
for struggling students. Technology developers will
need to become much more committed to creating
products that collect data on student performance
and generate reports that clearly communicate
student progress.
Some forms of assistive technology appear
necessary outside of the RTI model. It remains to
be seen how the field of assistive technology will
address this issue. As readers gain a deeper understanding of the change strategies occurring in their
local school district concerning the implementation
18
January/February 2009
of RTI, and its impact on the provision of universal design for learning and assistive technology
services, leadership is urgently needed to ensure
that technology is included in tiered interventions
and that appropriate student performance data is
collected to provide evidence to inform decision
making.
Edyburn, D.L. (2006a). Cognitive prostheses for
students with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal of Special
Education Technology, 21(4), 62-65.
References
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007).
Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8-12.
Edyburn, D.L. (2006c). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for
using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading With Technology,
34(1), 20-23.
Edyburn, D.L. (2007). Technology enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda.
Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146-152.
Hoover, J.J., & Patton, J.R. (2008). The role of special
educator in a multitiered instructional system.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4), 195-202.
Edyburn, D.L. (2006b). Re-examining the role of
assistive technology in learning. Closing the Gap,
25(5), 10-11, 26.
The Evidence Base
Map of the 2007 Special Education Technology Literature
SETP subscribers will discover a special
bonus feature in this edition. Enclosed with your
magazine is a copy of the 2007 Map of the Special
Education Technology Literature created by Dave
Edyburn.
Some readers may be familiar with Prof.
Edyburn’s annual review of the literature that was
published for many years in the Journal of Special
Education Technology. The map is a new tactic to try
and help special education technology leaders stay
up-to-date on the latest advances in our profession.
For readers that want to be extremely well-informed, the bibliography contains 345 articles that
will provide months of reading pleasure! However,
to help busy professionals locate recently published
articles that are most relevant for your work, I want
to direct your attention to the enclosed poster that
features a map of the 2007 literature. Each article
was assigned a descriptor then clustered into one
of eight categories. The numbers on the map correspond with the code number that appears in front
of each article citation in the document. Simply
browse the map to find topics of interest and locate
the specific articles using the code number.
Special Education Technology Practice
Hopefully, this new tool will allow you to create a personal reading list that is just the right size
and has just the right focus to inform your work
about the latest advances in special education technology. If you have comments or questions, send
an email to: dave@knowledge-by-design.com.
19
January/February 2009