Proposal
31
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TITLE PAGE: THE TITLE SHOULD GO HERE (ALL CAPS)
y
Student’s Full Legal Name
L University
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
L University
Yea
ABSTRACT
Today's teachers are expected to have a constantly expanding knowledge base and skills that support working within a multi-tiered system of supports, including Response to Intervention (MTSS/RTI). Since the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 and subsequent regulations that allowed school districts to use alternate processes for determining learning disabilities, the implementation of Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks in preschool- to 12th grade (PK-12) schools has steadily increased. However, most teachers lack the necessary skills and training to be successful in implementation. The existing teacher corps is the focus of cu
ent field-based professional development initiatives. Most Pk-12 schools, however, now require an entering teacher corps that has gained this knowledge and skills during their teacher preparation program. According to a tenet of multi-tiered systems of support and response to intervention, the lack of response to instructional intervention is explained by classroom experiences and behaviors given opportunities to learn (MTSS-RTI). This review investigates the use of Eco behavioral observation to inform steps that could be taken for children who aren't responding to elementary school to middle school literacy instruction in order to fill this information gap in MTSS-RTI decision making process.
Keywords: Mtss, rti , pbis, language and literacy, instruction, child academic engagement
Copyright Page (Optional)
Dedication (Optional)
The dedication page is a page in which the candidate dedicates the manuscript. This page is optional.
Acknowledgments (Optional)
The acknowledgments page provides the opportunity for the candidate to acknowledge individuals who influenced the writing and completion of the dissertation. This page is optional.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT 3
Copyright Page (Optional) 4
Dedication (Optional) 5
Acknowledgments (Optional) 6
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
List of A
eviations 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 13
Overview 13
Background 13
Problem Statement 14
Purpose Statement 14
Significance of the Study 14
Research Question(s) 15
Definitions 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 17
Overview 17
Conceptual or Theoretical Framework 17
Related Literature 18
Summary 18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 19
Overview 19
Design 19
Research Question(s) 19
Hypothesis(es) 20
Participants and Setting 21
Instrumentation 22
Procedures 23
Data Analysis 23
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 25
Overview 25
Research Question(s) 25
Null Hypothesis(es) 25
Descriptive Statistics 25
Results 26
Hypothesis(es) 26
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 27
Overview 27
Discussion 27
Implications 27
Limitations 27
Recommendations for Future Research 28
REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX or APPENDICES 30
List of Tables
The List of Tables cites the tables and the co
esponding pages of each table. This enables the reader to easily locate the tables in the manuscript. The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double spaced.
List of Figures
The List of Figures cites the figures and the co
esponding pages of each figure. This enables the reader to easily locate the figures in the manuscript. The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double-spaced.
List of A
eviations
The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double-spaced. Examples are provided below.
Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI)
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Overview
Start Chapter One with a
ief, introductory statement (one short paragraph). This should orient the reader to the contents of the chapter. Include no citations.
Background
A recommendation was made following the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 to use Response to Intervention (RTI). A research-based, tiered system of academic and social assistance that provides academic or social intervention based on the unique area(s) of need of a student is known as Response to Intervention (RTI). This approach provides educators with the capacity to work and identify these pupils early on, allowing them to close the gap between benchmarks and cu
ent accomplishment before it expands and becomes more difficult to close. Teachers' perceived levels of stress vary from day to day and according to Von der Embse, Schoemann, Kilgus, Wicoff, and Bowler (2017), and may result in the use of more frequent counterproductive teaching practices; however, despite these stressors, teachers are still held accountable for their students' academic growth. When academic or behavioral benchmarks show that a student is not performing at their highest level of learning (at/above benchmark), teachers must seek out innovative instructional strategies with the primary goal of closing the achievement gap, all while balancing their other job-related duties and responsibilities (Satterfield, XXXXXXXXXXIf general-ed teachers are unable to assist students in closing these academic gaps, the end result is all too frequently refe
al in other special education programs. Since the 1960s, members of the educational community have disputed educational choices for challenging kids, as well as concerns about the rapidly expanding number of pupils enrolled in special education programs (Jahnukainen and Itkonen, XXXXXXXXXXAs part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), RTI was authorized to be used indefinitely, and a multi-tiered support system was instituted as a means of securing additional assistance for all students, reducing the number of special education student refe
als, and lowering the overall costs of special education services (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, XXXXXXXXXXThe implementation of the RTI framework, according to Cowan and Maxwell (2015), resulted in a paradigm change in the educational system since it obliged educators to investigate alternative interventions, tactics, and approaches before recommending testing or attempting to diagnose a kid. The RTI framework was originally intended to be used as a strategy tool to aid in the early identification of students with learning disabilities. It was also intended to be used as a screening process to prevent over-identification of students as needing special education services as a result of an inco
ect diagnosis or label being assigned to a particular student (Satterfield, 2020).
Historical Overview
Researchers and educators have witnessed considerable gains in student outcomes as a result of the passage of federal special education legislation. The legislation was devised and implemented in order to ensure that all pupils, regardless of aptitude, have unfettered access to a free and suitable public education. Learning impairments, behavioral consulting, data-driven program adjustment, and other sectors are all examples of where the RTI framework has its roots (Bergan, 1977; Deno & Mirkin, XXXXXXXXXXIt was 1982 that the idea of a multi-tiered method in the general education classroom was first proposed, but it wasn't until more than a decade later that the idea of employing a multi-tiered approach in general education classrooms was revived at the federal level (Fuchs & Fuchs, XXXXXXXXXXRTI has been influenced by a variety of sources, including parent groups and educational psychology (Preston et al., 2016), but Heller, Holtzman, and Messick XXXXXXXXXXwere among the first researchers to conceptualize the origins of RTI in their theory that general education teachers are ultimately responsible for providing multiple interventions to struggling students and documenting student progress within these interventions (Preston et al., XXXXXXXXXXAccording to Heller et al. (1982), general education teachers must follow the established protocols before refe
ing a student to special education in order to reduce the overidentification of pupils for special education. According to Heller et al., "the measure of a child's potential is not his or her initial performance, but the degree of progress made in response to instruction" (p. 62). When it comes to special education, the tiered intervention approach has its roots in the preventive models used by the social and health services administration (Shonkoff & Meisels, XXXXXXXXXXKauffman XXXXXXXXXXproposed one of the first recognized direct uses of three levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention) in the context of special education interventions to target emotional and behavioral disorders (Zigmond, XXXXXXXXXXRTI has been around for quite some time, but it wasn't recognized as a formal program until President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, which mandated that educators incorporate scientifically based research in their instruction and intervention strategies (Thorius & Sullivan, 2013; Voulgarides, Fergus, & Thorius, XXXXXXXXXXThe No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
ought about significant and sweeping changes in the United States' educational system, and it increased pressure on general education teachers to emphasize the importance of providing high-quality, research-based instruction and interventions to all of their students (Klotz & Canter, XXXXXXXXXXIt also established the practice of holding schools and teachers formally accountable for the progress their students make on a yearly basis through the use of mandated standardized assessments, and it mandated that special education students not only have access to the general education cu
iculum but also participate in all standardized assessments, as well as participate in all standardized assessments (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, XXXXXXXXXXAs part of the NCLB accountability movement, control was transfe
ed from local school districts to the state level for schools that did not improve their performance criteria. The present tiered RTI model, as a result, has been described by researchers as a development of special education away from a civil rights frame and toward a frame of educational excellence and accountability (Itkonen, 2009; Jahnukainen & Itkonen, XXXXXXXXXXSchools may utilize a process that assesses if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process (614[6]B) when identifying students with learning disabilities when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in XXXXXXXXXX[6]B). This reauthorization, which allowed states to use RTI for both prevention and identification of learning disabilities, was prompted by growing concerns that the IQ-achievement discrepancy-based model that had previously been used had devolved into a "wait and see" model (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015; Kovaleski, 2007; Reschly, 2005; Voulgarides et al., 2017, Zigmond, XXXXXXXXXXIn many cases, kids had to fall so far behind their peers and "fail" before they could receive any assistance or interventions, and for many of them, the academic gap had grown so great by that point that it was nearly difficult to close the gap. As a result of the discrepancy model's lack of inclusion of evidence-based interventions and instructional response, it was frequently difficult for teachers to distinguish between students who were struggling because they did not respond to interventions and students who were still struggling because they had not received adequate instruction in the classroom (Vellutino et al., 1996; Voulgarides et al., XXXXXXXXXXSupporters of RTI believed that the use of a multi-tiered response model would allow teachers to better determine which students have a true disability and which students simply have not received evidence-based instruction. In many cases, kids had to fall so far behind their peers and "fail" before they could receive any assistance or interventions, and for many of them, the academic gap had grown so great by that point that it was nearly difficult to close it. As a result of the discrepancy model's lack of inclusion of evidence-based interventions and instructional response, it was frequently difficult