Is RtI a Better Method than Assessment in Identifying Students with Learning Disabilities?
Project instructions:
This is a Research Proposal including the following components: Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and references. The paper must be APA style with Title page
and Abstract.
Description of Necessary Information:The paper will describe a proposed research project. It will establish an experimental question by presenting relevant research
from the professional literature, and make a prediction. In most cases, the experimental question will take the form œIs ___ counseling technique effective as a
treatment for ___ problem? or œWhich of these two techniques is more effective with ___ problem? Other types of questions are acceptable, but check with me before
you start. The paper will tell
how you expect to investigate the question, what results you would expect if the technique is effective, and an alternative pattern of results that would indicate the
technique was not effective. It will explain what statistical tests would be used to determine whether results were significant (and why that test was chosen). In a
way, the paper tells a story. It sets up the experimental question, tells how the researcher is going to investigate the question, and what different outcomes may tell
the investigator.
The proposal must include the following sections, each with the
appropriate heading:
I. Introduction?
Explains why we should be interested in experimental question. It covers
previous research, shows how that research leads naturally into the present
study, how this study is different from previous research and will make an
original contribution. It also sets forth the hypothesis and makes a
prediction about the outcome in light of previous research.
As an example, Intro might briefly describe therapy technique of
interest; cite a couple of studies showing technique has worked with some
problems; point out it has not been investigated with problem/diagnostic
category that will be used in present study; explain reasons to expect
technique would be effective with this patient population; and make
prediction.
II. Method?
Explains how experimental question will be investigated. Readers should
be given all of the information they will need to run the experiment for
themselves. Section will include the following subsections, each with its
own subheading:
Participants?What kind of people will you study? e.g. What kind
of patients? How diagnosed? Where will you get them from?
Dependent measures?e.g. How will you measure the effectiveness
of your therapy? Either tell reader where they can get a copy of your
dependent measure or describe procedure used in detail (e.g. giving actual
questions, etc.).
Experimental groups?How will different groups be treated? E.g.
what will be done to therapy group members? To control group members?
What kind of study is it?“Is study a case study, correlational study,
or experimental study? Is it a between-subjects design, a within-subjects
design, or mixed?
Are you using a œbefore/after’ or just œafter design?
Control for confounding variables?Briefly explain how you will control for
subject, measurement and other possible confounding variables.
III. Results?
You don’t have to invent data, but show what kind of table you might use
to present results (e.g. Mean Beck Depression Inventory scores at end of
study for three treatment groups). Also, tell what statistical procedure you
would use to determine significance of results, and why you chose that test.
IV. Discussion?
Give one pattern of results that would confirm your hypothesis (e.g. What
pattern of results would tell you your treatment was effective for this
population?) and one pattern that would show your hypothesis was wrong
(e.g. What pattern of results would tell you your treatment was ineffective,
or no more effective than just providing attention, or actually did harm).
V. References?
On a separate page at the end of the paper, headed by the word
œReferences, give the full reference for every article mentioned in your
paper (and only articles that were mentioned). You must have at least five
references, three of which must be original research articles. If you are
using an existing test for your dependent measure, be sure its source is
included here. Use the APA style for references. This style is in Webster’s
Passport Paper guidelines or the APA Publication Manual. It looks like
this:
Jones, C. B. (1996). Unlikely correlations between Slagoff and McNasty
rheumatic figures, Journal of Irreproducible Results, 73, 176-188.
STYLE: APA style must be used. Proper English must be used. This
includes using complete sentences, making sure that subjects and verbs
agree, and using paragraphs in which there is a topic sentence and only one
idea expressed. The paragraphs must logically follow each other. In other
words, paper should be easy to read and understand. Test it out with a
couple of people before you turn it in.
Here are the References I used for my Annotated Bibliography:
Ball, C. R., & Christ, T. J. (2012). Supporting valid decision making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RTI. Psychology In The Schools, 49(3),
231-244. doi:10.1002/pits.21592
Callinan, S., Cunningham, E., & Theiler, S. (2013). Revisiting Discrepancy Theory in Learning Disabilities: What Went Wrong and Why We Should Go Back. Australian
Journal Of Guidance & Counselling, 23(1), 1-17. doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.22
Duhon, G., Mesmer, E., Atkins, M., Greguson, L., & Olinger, E. (2009). Quantifying Intervention Intensity: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Student Response to
Increasing Intervention Frequency. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 18(2), 101-118. doi:10.1007/s10864-009-9086-5
Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 4-11. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534909
Johnson, E. S., Semmelroth, C., Mellard, D. F., & Hopper, G. (2012). Using RTI within a Comprehensive SLD Evaluation: A Review of a State’s First Year Efforts.
Learning Disabilities A Contemporary Journal, 10(2), 1-15.
Lipson, M. Y., Chomsky-Higgins, P., & Kanfer, J. (2011). Diagnosis: The Missing Ingredient in RTI Assessment. Reading Teacher, 65(3), 204-208. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01031
Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of Intervention in Responsiveness to Intervention: Prevention Outcomes and Learning Disabilities Identification Patterns. Journal Of Learning
Disabilities, 38(6), 539.
McKenzie, R. G. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within rti Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 203-215.
O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Beach, K. D., Sanchez, V., & Flynn, L. J. (2013). Special Education in a 4-Year Response to Intervention (RtI) Environment:
Characteristics of Students with Learning Disability and Grade of Identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 28(3), 98-112.
doi:10.1111/ldrp.12013
Restori, A. F., Katz, G. S., & Lee, H. B. (2009). A Critique of the IQ / Achievement Discrepancy Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities. Europe’s Journal
Of Psychology, 128-145.
Wodrich, D. L., Spencer, M. L.S. and Daley, K. B. (2006), Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychol. Schs., 43:
797?806. doi: 10.1002/pits.20189
Zirkel, P. A., & Krohn, N. (2008). RTI after IDEA. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 71-73.
