The Impact of Response To Intervention Models Final

Running head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS
The Impact of Response To Intervention Models

On the Achievement Of Students of Varying Abilities
Joyce H. Fragale
University of New England
December 17, 2014
Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS
Author Note
This researcher would like to acknowledge two outstanding colleagues who greatly
contributed to her ability to complete this research. Sixth grade teachers Colleen Maker, and
Brianna McCarthy were instrumental in working with the researcher to design and alter the
research, as needed, in the creation and administration of assessments, and in providing valuable
insight, all of which greatly contributed to the results of this action research.
Abstract
Maine Public Law Chapter 313, An Act Regarding Curriculum Requirements and Standards for
Awarding a High School Diploma (n.d.), requires schools to implement Response to Intervention
(RtI). Questions have arisen surrounding the efficacy of alternative models of RtI for those
students not in need of intervention. The goal of this research was to ascertain the impact of
current and proposed practice on the achievement of students of varied abilities; specifically
those students not in need of remediation. Study participants included a cohort of sixth grade
students, and their homeroom teachers. The cohort consisted of 33 Caucasian students, 12
female and 21 male. Approximately 50% of this population qualified for free or reduced lunch.
The researcher used a Mixed Methods design in an attempt to determine differences in student
achievement through comparison of data resulting from three alternative RtI Block interventions.
The study revealed that Response to Intervention Blocks will effectively increase student
achievement only when designed in consideration of researched best practice as carried out
through high quality curriculum with consideration for the unique characteristics of students.
Key Terms: Response To Intervention, ability, achievement, and model.
Table of Contents
Introduction..... 6
Problem Statement.. 7
Research Questions. 9
Hypothesis..10
Literature Review...11
Key Terms. 11
RtI An Overview....12
Student Groups.. 13
Literature On Tier 1 Interventions.14
Tier 1 Intervention and Dual Exceptionalities.. 15

Tier 1 Intervention and the Gifted and Talented... 15
Tier 1 Intervention Summary.17
Tier 2 Intervention and Exceptionalities18
Tier 2 Intervention Summary 18
Tier 3 Intervention, Dual Exceptionalities, and the Gifted and Talented..19
Literature Review Summary..19
Hypothesis As Related to the Literature Review...21
Literature Review Implications for the Proposed Study....... 21
Methodology..22
Problem Statement Summary22
Goals of the Research....23
Research Design Justification23
Restatement of Hypotheses24
Research Design.24
Data Collection Plan..25
Math Assessment...26
Likert Scale27
Teacher Interviews.27
Learning Style Profile28
Demographic Data Collection28
Validity, Creditability, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability.....28

Data Analysis.29
Sample Selection30
Methodology Summary.30
Results30
Findings.31
Intervention Model 1 Math Assessment Results...32
Intervention Model 2 Math Assessment Results...32
Likert Scales..32
Likert Scales Remediation During Model 1..33
Likert Scales Remediation During Model 2......34
Likert Scales Enrichment Model 1 Moby Max..35
Likert Scales Enrichment Model 2 Science Web Quest36
Teacher Interviews.37
Discussion..39
Limitations.41
Summary and Further Research.42
Action Plan45
Conclusion.46
References. 47
Appendix50
The Impact of Response To Intervention Models On the Achievement Of

Students of Varying Abilities
Roy M. Gallant (RMG) Elementary School is the largest of six, Pre-K through 8 schools
that are part of AOS #96, located in Down East Maine. Current enrollment is approximately 370
with a 70% free and reduced lunch population. Based on criteria dictated by Maine Statutes for
the Gifted and Talented Regulation 104, (Rule Chapters for the Department of Education, n.d.),
approximately 5% of the total school population has been identified as possessing gifts and
talents. Grades are divided into two classes per grade. Students in grades Pre-K through 5 have
one teacher per class teaching all subject areas. Students in grade 6 move between two teachers
who specialize in two subject areas each, and 7th and 8th grade students move between four
teachers who specialize by subject area. The cohort chosen for this study consisted of grade six
students.
RMG is in the process of implementing Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and
as required by Maine Law (PUBLIC Law, Chapter 313, An Act Regarding Curriculum
Requirements and Standards for Awarding a High School Diploma, n.d.), Response to
Intervention (RtI).
Maine Law dictates rules surrounding interventions, however many
operational specifications have been left to the discretion of the schools. Preliminary research
and professional development surrounding protocols and organization has been completed.
RMG has chosen to model the organization of RtI blocks after that of many other schools that
have implemented these strategies. During the RtI blocks students in need of remediation will
work with the classroom teacher. The rest of the class will work in groups with support staff to
complete enrichment activities.
Problem Statement
In spite of receiving an A grade on the state report card, Roy M. Gallant Elementary
Schools data mirrors that of the schools within the rest of the AOS 96 district in that it indicates
a correlation between poverty and low achievement. Based on the New England Common
Assessment (iservices, 2014), and Free and Reduced Lunch Report data (PowerSchool, 2014), of
the students currently enrolled in grades 3 through 8 who scored below proficiency on the
NECAP, 73% live in poverty. This constitutes 23% of the total school population. Conversely,
of those students not qualifying for the free and reduced lunch program only 27% did not meet
state qualifications for proficiency, which constitutes only 8% of the total school population
(Fragale, 2012, p. 2).
As Assistant Principal the researcher is excited to be implementing PLCs and RtI blocks
in response to these statistics.
However, as Director of the Ventures Gifted and Talented
Program, the researcher is concerned that the protocol for RtI Blocks for those students who are
not in need of remediation does not represent the most productive use of these students time.
One of the goals indicated in research surrounding programming for the gifted is to
ensure that students are not wasting valuable time by sitting through material that they have
already mastered. The National Assessment of Student Progress reveals that the scores of high
achieving students have stagnated, with virtually no growth or a slight decline since 1971. It has
been argued that the overwhelming attention to raising the achievement levels of low-performing
students has resulted in the benign neglect of high-achieving ones (Epstein, Pianko, Schnur, &
Wyner, 2011; Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009; as cited in Fisher & Frey, 2012, p. 286). The
current goals of standards based education demand that students perform activities aligned with
the Common Core. We cannot afford for some students to spend time within the school day on
activities that do not extend their education for the sake of allowing others time to catch on or
catch up.
We must ensure that educational time is used efficiently and that all students benefit from
opportunities for increased knowledge. teachers offer different approaches to what students
learn, how they learn it, and how they demonstrate what theyve learned. What these different
approaches have in common, however, is that they are crafted to encourage substantial growth in
all students. (Teachers) define a good education as one that helps students maximize their
capacity as learners (Tomlinson, 2001, pp. 4, 8).
A teacher embraces at least the following four beliefs: Respect the
readiness level of each student, expect all students to grow... offer all students
the opportunity to explore essential understanding and skills at degrees of

difficulty that escalate consistently as they develop their understanding and
skill, offer all student tasks that look, and are, equally interesting, equally
important, and equally engaging (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 12).
The researcher is curious as to the impact that alternative models of RtI will have on the
achievement of students of varying abilities, and specifically those students not in need of
remediation.
The goal of the Response To Intervention (RtI) instructional practice is to raise the
achievement of those students who are not successful in demonstrating mastery of skills at hand.
However, currently students of all ability levels attending Roy M. Gallant are required to
participate in Response to Intervention (RtI) Blocks. RtI Blocks are organized with students who
are in need of remediation spending two 40-minute blocks per week working with the classroom
teacher to master currently taught skills through experimentation using alternative instructional
strategies. Those students who have mastered the material are relegated to enrichment activities,
not necessarily on topic. For these students this represents 80 minutes of math or language arts
time lost to unassociated enrichment activities per week.
The nature of the problem is that the current organization of RtI Blocks may have the
effect of causing the education of students who have mastered concepts to be on hold while
other students are given assistance in the form of remediation. It is unethical for practitioners to
allow the education of some to stagnate, for the sake of remediation for others. We must ensure
that educational time is used efficiently and effectively allowing all students an opportunity to
benefit from increased knowledge acquisition at their readiness level.
10
The goal of this research was to ascertain the impact of current practice on the
achievement of students of varied abilities, and specifically those students not in need of
remediation. The responsibility for change due to research outcomes that indicate lack of
positive impact on student achievement, falls upon Professional Learning Communities, PLCs
should work to alter Response to Intervention Blocks to remedy programming for low impact
populations by trying different strategies and conducting research until positive impact is arrived
at for all students. To effect change, data representing the impact of current practice, as well as
proposed practice, on varied student populations, were derived. Grade 6 at RMG was chosen as
the research group. This group represents a wide range of ability, thus increasing generalizability
across the RMG student population.
Research Questions
The researcher questions the impact of Response To Intervention Blocks on students of
varying ability levels. The researcher questions the impact of the organization of the Response
to Intervention Blocks on the achievement of those students relegated to enrichment activities;
specifically the efficient use of educational time toward continued learning for this population.
This study attempted to determine differences in student achievement through
comparison of data resulting from three RtI Block interventions. The first intervention, the
remediation block, remained stable with students who did not demonstrate mastery of the topic at
hand working in small groups with the classroom or resource room teacher to master concepts
through the application of alternative strategies. The second intervention represents a suggested,
but not currently proposed, method whereby those students demonstrating mastery continued
their education by participating in a model that represents researched best practice, while
continuing to learn on topic. The third intervention represents the currently proposed model
11
whereby those students who had mastered the topic at hand worked with support staff to
complete off topic enrichment activities. The researcher seeks to demonstrate the impact of these
alternative methods on student achievement.
Hypothesis
Response to Intervention Blocks will have the effect of increasing achievement for
students only when designed in consideration of researched best practice as carried out through
high quality curriculum. Above this, the unique qualities of all students including those with
special needs, dual exceptionalities, and giftedness must be taken into consideration. These
qualities represent not only students varying levels of ability pertaining to different skills and
topics, but also individual learning styles and areas of interest.
The following action research focusing on the impact of the Response to Intervention
educational model on the achievement of students of varying ability, began with a Literature
Review. The intent of the review was to provide an overview of models currently used in the
implementation of RtI, as well as how aspects of these models differ for students of varying
abilities. A summary of the findings of the review, implications for the proposed study, as well
as a restatement of the hypothesis in relation to the findings of the review of the literature, are
included. The Methodology includes a Mixed Methods (Mills, 2014) design with the hope of
increasing the validity and reliability of outcomes, as well as generalizability pertaining to the
RMG climate.
Literature Review
The review of associated literature for this research began by searching key words:
Response To Intervention, ability, achievement, and models. This revealed several documents.
However further refinement of key words to include education helped eliminate articles
12
surrounding medical interventions. A review of article abstracts revealed many articles targeting
the achievement of intervention groups. Articles were often specific to age, intervention,
academic subject, and achievement, or student or teachers perceptions of the academic
intervention. Few articles were found pertaining to the impact of differing models of the
Response To Intervention academic intervention on the achievement of those students not
members of the targeted intervention groups. Following is a summary of the findings most
pertinent to the question of how varied models pertaining to the Response to Intervention
Academic intervention impact students of varying abilities, specifically those not in need of
intervention.
Key Terms
Curriculum Based Measure
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is the best-known method of student progress
monitoring. CBM helps teachers find out how students are progressing in basic academic
areas. CBMprovides current, week-by-week information on the progress (the) child is
making. When a teacher uses a CBM, he or she finds out how well a student is progressing in
learning the content for the academic year. CBM also monitors the success of the
instruction that student is receivingif student performance is not meeting expectations, the
teacher then changes the way of teaching that student to try to find the
type and amount of
instruction needed to make sufficient progress toward meeting the academic goals (CurriculumBased Measurement | Especially for Teachers | At School, n.d.).
RtI An Overview
Response To Intervention (RtI) is an academic intervention model that is often thought of
as a series of interventions targeting students who are in need of remediation based on lack of
13
success as demonstrated by the results of a Curriculum Based Measure. Although this is to an

extent an accurate definition, the key terms to be considered in this statement are remediation
and success. Students in need of intervention are not always in need of remediation, and
demonstrating lack of success pertaining to learning can be defined as students who will be
unsuccessful because they have not mastered grade level expectations pertaining to a topic, as
well as students who will be unsuccessful due to the fact that they are performing above grade
level and need modifications that will allow them to continue to grow in their education. Beyond
these two categories of students remain those that may be unsuccessful due to conditions that
require accommodations due to exceptionalities. RtI targets those students who, based on the
subject matter or skill at hand, may need intervention in the form of modification or
accommodation in order to be successful. However, what is the impact of interventions on the
learning of those students who demonstrate success? What happens to the education of those not
in need of remediation?
With the reauthorization of the 2004 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, school
districts were allowed flexibility in determining LD identification. Many abandoned the
discrepancy model of identification, replacing it with the Response To Intervention (RtI)
model. Some states (including Maine) have mandated use of RtI (Green et al., 2012; Zirkel,
2012; as cited in Yssel, Adams, Clarke, and Jones, 2014).
The National Center on Response to Intervention (2010; as cited in Green et al., 2012)
describes four essential components of RtI: (a) a school-wide, multilevel instructional and
behavioral system for preventing school failure, (b) screening, (c) progress monitoring, and (d)
data-based decision making (p. 1). Response To Intervention Strategies typically include a
three-tiered approach. Tier 1 includes a high quality curriculum and strategies for differentiation
14
for all students. This is typically provided in a whole class setting. Curriculum Based Measures
provide data that dictates whether students need further intervention. Tier 2 interventions
provide a more intense level of support one on one or in small groups. Assessment is more
frequent with the goal of returning students to Tier 1 (with the exception of gifted students who
may remain in Tier 2) or moving students to more intense Tier 3 Interventions. Tier 3
interventions usually culminate in referral to special or gifted education services. 80% of
students are expected to experience success in Tier 1, 15% in Tier 2, and 5-10% in Tier 3 (Green
et al., 2012).
The purpose of RtI is squarely improving results for students: All students. Indeed, RtI
is not about special education, nor general education, nor talented and gifted, nor at-risk, nor
migrant educationRtI is about Every Education (Tilly, 2009, p. 12; as cited in Coleman &
Hughes, 2009).
Student Groups
When speaking of student differences as pertaining to education, a myriad of individual
characteristics come to mind. What are the students interests, preferred modes of learning,
preferred ways of grappling with information, and preferred modes of expression? Where do the
students ability and prior knowledge levels lie pertaining to specific skills and content? These
are the types of information used by teachers in order to differentiate appropriately.
However, when speaking of student differences beyond basic methods of differentiation,
(Tier 1 interventions) within the classroom, more general student categories are typically
considered within the research (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2012; Coleman & Hughes, 2009; Fisher
& Frey, 2012; Green et al., 2012; Hughes & Rollins, 2009; Hughes et al., 2009; Rollins, Mursky,
Shah-Coltrane & Johnson, 2009; Tomlinson, 2001; Van-Tassel-Baska, 2005; Yssel et al., 2014).
15
Categories include: students in need of remediation, students in need of enrichment or extension,

and twice exceptional students who may be in need of a combination of enrichment and
remediation depending on strengths and weaknesses.
Literature On Tier 1 Interventions
Tier 1 interventions are typically classroom based. All students benefit from a high
quality, differentiated, curriculum that takes into consideration individual strengths, interests, and
learning preferences (Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2011; as cited in Yssel et al., 2014). High
quality instruction (a) focuses on rich and profound ideas of the discipline, (b) engages students
emotionally and cognitively, (c) requires students to solve problems, address issues, and create
products, (d) and is relevant to students lives (Tomlinson 2005; as cited in Rollins et al., 2009,
p. 24).
Within Tier 1 teachers use universal screening measures in order to plan activities that are
based on students needs involving remediation, as well as students strengths involving
enrichment (Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2013; as cited in Yssel et al., 2014). Any student may
opt to participate in pretests thus having the opportunity to demonstrate mastery and benefit from
alternative activities (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2012).
Many program models are designed to target the entire range of educational needs. For
example, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has renamed their program Response to
Instruction to reflect its generalizability across the student population (Rollins et al., 2009).
Colorados Universal Tier (Tier 1) emphasizes that all aspects of education including gifted,
special needs, and twice exceptional, can be operated as a seamless unified system (Colorado
Dept. of Education, 2009; as cited in Rollins et al., 2009 p. 27). Utah provides challenging
differentiated curriculum that targets students needs pertaining to interests, learning style, and
16
readiness, and Ohio offers school wide interventions and support systems for all students
(Rollins et al., 2009).
Program Models also hold several components in common. Programs typically begin
with a foundation of high quality instruction, identify problems through universal screening,
design interventions, monitor progress, collaborate among all concerned parties, and make
modifications (Rollins et al., 2009).
Tier 1 intervention and dual exceptionalities.
The RtI model does work for those students who possess dual exceptionalities. Yssel et
al., (2014) state, Students who are twice exceptional are defined as those students who
demonstrate high ability or giftedness, and a disability (p. 1). It is important for teachers to
understand that these students may not be gifted in all areas, and to also have an understanding of
the disabilities specific to the student. Recommendations include that teachers differentiate
based on students strengths as well as needs (Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2013; as cited in Yssel
et al., 2014; Winebrenner, 2003; as cited in Hughes & Rollins, 2009). Data based decision
making is vital in targeting which modifications are needed in which areas, and in designing
supports (Adams et al., 2012; as cited in Yssel et al., 2014).
Tier 1 intervention and the gifted and talented.
Students with gifts and talents have special needs, many of which can be met within the
regular classroom through Tier 1 interventions. In a study performed by Fisher & Frey (2012)
students with gifts and talents cited many Tier 1 interventions as helpful to them in the learning
process. Above this they did not find that these interventions created boredom. Teacher
modeling through metacognitive statements was cited as a helpful strategy. Students also
revealed that working collaboratively and cooperatively with peers was enjoyable. An exception
17
was that students preferred to be held accountable for individual versus group work. Students
did not resent homework as long as it was rigorous and relevant to the topic, and associations
were made to the world around them. Students also claimed to prefer small group work with
guided instruction. Therefore small group instruction of this type should also be used to deepen
and extend student knowledge beyond grade level expectations (Fisher & Frey, 2012 p. 298).
Students were also cited as stating that they enjoy problem and project based learning as relevant
to the real world (Zbiek, Reed, & Boone, 2007; as cited in Fisher & Frey, 2012).
Programming for the gifted includes beginning with a rich, rigorous curriculum, evidence
of mastery, followed by curriculum compacting, self-directed learning, flexible grouping, open
ended assignments, guest speakers, field trips, and performance tasks that have real world
application. Collaboration between general education, special education, and gifted education
specialists is crucial in meeting the needs of exceptional children (Hughes and Rollins, 2009).
Another Tier 1 intervention applicable to students of varying abilities including those
with gifts and talents is Cluster Grouping (Brulles, & Winebrenner, 2012). According to Brulles
and Winebrenner (2012) Cluster Grouping parallels RtI in that teachers ascertain the students
level of readiness, and design, implement, and assesses interventions. If the student
demonstrates mastery of the topic the student is assigned more challenging work pertaining to
the topic. Ongoing assessment to monitor mastery of the replacement material is essential.
Benefits of Clustering are: heightened probability of differentiation due to a higher
number of high performing students being clustered in a singular classroom, students benefit
from learning partners, challenge each other, and are more likely to complete alternative
activities. Students feel more comfortable with peers with whom they can relate (Webb et al.,
2005; Delisle & Galbraith, 2002; as cited in Brulles and Winebrenner, 2012, p. 44). It is
18
important to remember however that there is great variance in learning style, interest, and
academic readiness even within the gifted and talented population (Hughes and Rollins, 2009).
Tier 1 intervention summary.
Tier 1 interventions include monitoring students for admission into Tier 2 Interventions.
Along with those students who may be in need of remediation on a sporadic basis due to
difficulties with certain skills or concepts, students who may have dual exceptionalities or gifts
should be monitored for targeted programming as well. Twice exceptional children, as well as
children with gifts, often have discrepancies between high and low performance. Just as the
universal screening data is monitored for students who are low performing, it should also be
monitored for those who may be gifted or dually exceptional (Hughes, & Rollins, 2009; Yssel et
al., 2014).
Tier 2 interventions typically target those students in need of remediation, or enrichment.
Students with unidentified special needs may be found in Tier 2 intervention groups. The
principle of tier 2 intervention is to assist students in working at appropriate levels to remediate
their weaknesses while still advancing their strengths (Adams, Yssel, & Anwiler, 2012; as cited
in Yssel, 2014, p. 45)
Models for Tier 2 interventions include more intense intervention beyond that offered in
Tier 1. Green et al., (2012) point to The Diamond Model developed by an elementary school in
the North Eastern United States. The Diamond Model targets students with gifts and talents with
the addition of Tier 2 and Tier 3 enrichment, in addition to Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention for
those students in need of remediation, within their RtI model. The traditional Triangular model
typically depicting RtI is exchanged for a diamond model with the triangle being extended to
19
include Tier 2 and 3 enrichment (Appendix A). The upper triangle represents those students in
need of additional academic challenge, while the lower triangle represents those students in need
of remediation. Students are placed in enrichment or intervention based on individual need.
Although Tier 2 interventions are on topic, while Tier 2 enrichment varies from on topic
activities to enrichment activities such as Destination Imagination, both Tier 2 enrichment and
intervention are linked to instructional requirements.
Tier 2 interventions and exceptionalities.
Brulles and Winebrenners Cluster Grouping model (2012) dictates that Tier 1
differentiation, be followed by curriculum compacting for those students who demonstrate
advanced knowledge. Credit is given for what students already know, students are assigned
different (not more) work, and students are allowed to move through the curriculum at their own
pace.
School models for Tier 2 intervention include targeting needs through small groups, or
individual instruction. Students are offered opportunities for exploration in areas pertaining to
individual student strengths and interests, problem or inquiry based learning, future studies,
debate and competitions (Coleman & Hughes, 2009; Rollins et al., 2009).
Tier 2 intervention summary.
Tier 2 interventions include teachers designing or admitting students to activities that
compensate for students strengths, weaknesses, styles, and interests (Coleman & Hughes, 2009;
Hughes and Rollins, 2009). Those students possessing dual exceptionalities may have dual
targets. Also while it is the goal of those students in Tier 2 to return to Tier 1, students with gifts
and talents may remain in Tier 2 as a learning objective (Hughes & Rollins, 2009).
20
Of the three tiers Tier 3 interventions are the most intense. This Tier may include referral
to special or gifted education (Coleman & Hughes, 2009; as cited in Yssel et al., 2014).
Comprehensive assessment systems designed for referral purposes include a body of evidence
collected throughout the students intervention process. Students are nominated for gifted or
special education and parents are included in the referral and program development (Coleman &
Hughes, 2009).
According to Crepeau-Hobson & Blanco, (2013; as cited in Yssel et al., 2014) Tier 3
could include individual or small group interventions and might include intensive acceleration
and or special education. Tier 3 interventions across researched states include: designs to include
all students in Tier 3 activities, acceleration, targeted instructional support, the inclusion of
school and community based resources, after school programs, counseling, school and family
partnerships, individualized options for dually exceptional students, independent study, and
specialized programs (Rollins et al., 2009).
Tier 3 interventions, dual exceptionalities, and the gifted and talented.
Van-Tassel Baska (2005) cites mandatory programming for students identified as
possessing gifts and talents to include: differentiated curriculum, accelerated study, technology
integration, access to advanced opportunities outside of school, flexibility in schooling, dual
enrollment, flexible grouping, mentorships, internships, and problem based learning.
Literature Review Summary
Response to Intervention is a 3-tiered approach driven by the ongoing derivation and
analyzing of data, and increasing in intensity based on student need. Tier 1 interventions include
researched best practice beginning with a high quality curriculum and including differentiated
practices based on students readiness, interests, and preferred learning style. It is important to
21
ensure that Tier 1 practices are adhered to with fidelity in order to avoid false admittance into
Tier 2.
Tier 2 interventions include more intense remediation or challenge in an individual or
small group setting. The goal for students who are being remediated is to reach grade level
equivalency therefore returning to Tier 1. However if Tier 2 strategies are unsuccessful, students
may be admitted to Tier 3 where they may benefit from more intense remediation. The goal for
students with gifts or talents may be to remain in Tier 2 in order to receive continued challenge,
or progress to Tier 3 if in need of more accelerated programming.
Tier 3 interventions often include referral to special or gifted education. Intense
modifications are required in order to successfully meet the needs of these students.
The literature review points to the fact that although the needs of all students are
considered within Tier 1 interventions, those students who do not posses exceptionalities are left
with fewer opportunities than those students in need of remediation or enrichment. A favorite
mantra is that Fair is not that every student receive an equal education, but that students receive
the education that they need when they need it. However, given the nature of some of the
suggested interventions, it does seem as though on grade level students are sometimes punished
for fitting within the norm.
Of special concern to me were the suggestions for Tier 3 within the Diamond Model
(Green et al., 2012). Suggested activities ranged from Destination Imagination, Guitar lessons,
student council, and running a school store, to organizing fundraisers. These are activities that all
students would enjoy and should be privy to. The reservation of the aforementioned activities
for the benefit of a select few is of concern. Also of concern are those activities designed to have
students hold up and hold on assigned as busy work for those students not in need of

remediation, while those in need of remediation receive services.
22
This in my opinion is
unethical, and creates the risk of greatly inhibiting student achievement as measured in
comparison to this time being used for educational benefit.
Research has indicated that three tier models that integrate more than one area of
achievement produce greater student gains than those that focus on (one subject) alone (Stewart,
Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007; as cited in Yssel, 2014, p. 48). Therefore, this
warrants integrated curriculums, which on the surface may appear to avoid the disregard of
educational subjects that have been traded out for enrichment time in some models. However,
In this time of rapidly expanding school choice, schools need to provide a challenging learning
environment for students of all levels of ability and achievement (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2012
p. 45). Therefore we must guard educational time, and ensure that activities for all students
represent continued learning in opposition to mediocre busy work doled out in order to buy time
with those students in need of remediation.
Hypothesis as Related to the Literature Review
The Literature Review further validates the researchers hypothesis. Response to
Intervention Blocks will have the effect of increasing achievement for students only when
designed in consideration of researched best practice as carried out through high quality
curriculum. Above this, the unique qualities of all students including those with special needs,
dual exceptionalities, and giftedness must be taken into consideration. These qualities represent
not only students varying levels of ability pertaining to different skills and topics, but also
individual learning styles and areas of interest.
Literature Review Implications for the Proposed Study
23
RtI models were found to include recommended programming for students in need of
remediation, special education, as well as those possessing gifts, talents, and dual
exceptionalities. Recommendations were made for programming for these populations at all
Tiers. However, in order for optimum achievement to take place, fidelity to these
recommendations must be guarded for these populations. Further research is needed to ascertain
the impact of differing RtI models pertaining to the achievement of those students not in need of
remediation. Current models being practiced relegate those students not in need of intervention
to One Size Fits All enrichment activities, during the time frames set aside for remediation.
The questions are: Would it be more beneficial for students not in need of remediation to
participate in enrichment activities? Would it be more beneficial for students not in need of
remediation to remain in the classroom to work to a deeper depth and level of complexity of
knowledge on topic? Would it be more beneficial for students not in need of remediation to be
allowed to participate in interest based, real world application, academically integrated research
projects? We cant afford not to have the answer. The price is too high.
Methodology
Roy M. Gallant Elementary Schools data indicates a correlation between poverty and
low achievement (Fragale, 2012, p. 2). In response to these statistics, and as mandated by Maine
State Law (PUBLIC Law, Chapter 313, An Act Regarding Curriculum Requirements and
Standards for Awarding a High School Diploma, n.d.), RMG is in the process of implementing
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and Response to Intervention (RtI) blocks.
Response To Intervention (RtI) is an academic intervention model that consists of a series of
interventions targeting students who are in need based on lack of success as demonstrated by the
results of a Curriculum Based Measure. Response To Intervention models typically include a
24
three-tiered approach with Tier 1 representing whole class modification in the form of
differentiation, and Tiers 2 and 3 representing increased intensity in intervention and assessment
toward the goal of academic success.
Problem Statement Summary
Questions have arisen surrounding the efficacy of alternative models of RtI
implementation for those students not in need of intervention. Of primary concern is that the
protocol for RtI Blocks for this population does not represent the most productive use of these
students academic time. The current proposed RtI model at Roy M. Gallant requires that all
students participate in RtI Blocks. Students who are in need of remediation spend two 40-minute
blocks per week working to master current skills through experimentation using alternative
instructional strategies in individual or small group settings under the guidance of content area
experts. Those students who have mastered the material are assigned enrichment activities. This
represents 80 minutes of math or language arts class time lost to enrichment activities per week
for the latter population.
Goals of the Research
The goal of this research was to ascertain the impact of current and proposed RtI models
on the achievement of students of varied abilities, specifically those not in need of intervention.
This study includes the comparison of data for below grade level, on grade level, and above
grade level student groups when exposed to interventions including, remediation, differentiated
whole class instruction, and enrichment activities.
Research Design Justification
The researcher chose a Mixed-Methods Design. It is the opinion of the researcher that an
integration of both qualitative and quantitative research was beneficial in increasing the validity,
25
reliability, and generalizability of this research project. Quantitative data, used to ascertain
achievement levels and attitudes as applied to various characteristics of the student population,
when presented alone cannot accurately indicate valuable information that might be derived from
observations and interviews. Conversely qualitative data, when presented in seclusion, negates
the possibilities for uncovering intervention related achievement, as well as potentially telling
correlations between specific population demographics and interventions. The use of a Mixed
Methods design allows the researcher to present raw data, make assumptions based on
interpretations and correlations, and further validate these assumptions through interviews and
observations. data collections associated with action research is largely an idiosyncratic
approach fueled by the desire to understand ones practice and to collect data that is appropriate
and accessible (Mills, 2014, p. 83).
Restatement of Hypothesis
The researcher hypothesizes that the results of this research will demonstrate that in order
to arrive at optimum increased achievement levels for all students, Response to Intervention
blocks must be designed in consideration of researched best practice as carried out through high
quality curriculum, the unique qualities and characteristics of the students involved, and
integrated in a manner that represents continued learning for all students.
Research Design
In order to ascertain the impact of Response To Intervention Models on the achievement
of students of varying abilities, the researcher chose a cohort that included all sixth grade
students attending RMG, and a math focus. Students had access to high quality differentiated
instruction within the regular classroom setting daily.
The researcher, with the aid of the
classroom teachers, assessed the achievement of students based on three separate interventions,
26
an intervention during which the primary goal was remediation, and two separate enrichment
interventions.
Response to Intervention blocks took place twice per week for 40 minutes per block.
Those selected for the remediation group were exposed to the first intervention for the portion of
the research period prior to their demonstration of mastery. They were then returned to the
enrichment group. Those not selected for participation in the remediation group were exposed to
two separate RtI models designed for non-remediation groups. Since insufficient support staff
negated the possibility of implementing the separate enrichment models simultaneously, the
research time frame was divided in half in order to expose the enrichment groups to the two
enrichment intervention models.
The first intervention lasted throughout the study and included those individuals who,
based on the outcome of Curriculum Based Measures, were in need of Tier 2 math remediation.
Those students worked as part of a small group with a content area expert during RtI block time
until which point mastery was demonstrated. This intervention remained stable throughout the
implementation of two proposed intervention models for those students not in need of
remediation.
During the first half of the study the non-remediation group participated in the second
intervention. The students worked on math within the Moby Max (n.d.) computer program
under the supervision of support personnel.
This program simulated an ability based
differentiated classroom. This intervention model (Model 1) simulated all students working on
topic at their challenge level throughout the academic day, including during RtI block times.
During the second half of the study the non-remediation group was exposed to the third
intervention (Model 2). During this intervention students were assigned to participate in an
27
enrichment activity in the form of a science web quest during RtI blocks. This represented the
off topic activity originally planned by the school.
Data Collection Plan
Response to Intervention is required by Maine State Law to ensure that all students
receive appropriate interventions toward school success. As stated in the introduction, Roy M.
Gallant Elementary Schools data indicates a correlation between poverty and low achievement.
(Fragale, 2012, p.2). Although the primary purpose of this research project was to assess the
impact of Response to Intervention models on the achievement of students of varying abilities,
data collection had the potential to reveal correlations pertaining to several student
demographics, including poverty.
A Mixed Method design was used for data collection. Data includes research specific
measures such as math assessments used to obtain pre and post intervention achievement data, as
well as data surrounding observations, and attitudes and opinions obtained through Likert scales,
and teacher interviews. Data also includes non-research specific demographic data that was
obtained for correlational purposes. This includes prior achievement data, free and reduced
lunch participation, gender, special needs, gifted, and the results of learning style surveys.
One set of data was used to ascertain students' progress when exposed to researched best
practice during Tier 1 (ongoing in class differentiation using a high quality curriculum), in
combination with a computer program that simulated on topic differentiation. This simulated the
students not in need of intervention receiving regular class instruction during the time that the
remediation group was being pulled out (Model 1).
28
The second set of data was used to ascertain students progress when exposed to Tier 1
interventions as in the first model, in combination with off topic enrichment activities. This
mirrored the model currently proposed by Roy M. Gallant (Model 2).
Data also included those students who participated in a combination of enrichment and
remediation activities. This took place as a natural occurrence based on how an actual RtI block
operates.
Students participated in the remediation model only until mastery had been
demonstrated, and then returned to the enrichment model taking place.

Math assessment.
To begin data collection teachers used Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) to decide
which students were to participate in the teacher led remediation group. Following this the entire
sixth grade cohort was given a math pre-test, which covered the upcoming unit of study. The
math pretest was administered again as a posttest at the culmination of the second intervention
during the time that students were exposed to Model 1. This post test was used again as a pretest
for intervention 3, Model 2, for the purpose of ascertaining growth, as well as designating
students for initial admittance into the remediation group during intervention 3, Model 2. At the
culmination of the third intervention an end of unit assessment was given. The purpose of the
math assessments was to ascertain growth for those who participated in the remediation group
(intervention 1) as well as growth for the non-remediation group during Model 1 (intervention 2)
and Model 2 (intervention 3) interventions.
Likert scale.
A Likert Scale (Mills, 2014) (Appendices B, C, D, E) was administered to all students at
the culmination of the Model 1 intervention, and again at the culmination of the Model 2
intervention. One scale was designed and administered to those students who did not receive
29
remediation, and another was designed and administered to those students who received
remediation at any point during one of the intervention models.
A semantic differential (Mills, 2014) was used in order to obtain quantitative data,
followed by qualitative data in the form of brief survey questions. The purpose of the scale was
to monitor students attitudes toward each intervention, as well as give the researcher insight
pertaining to student feelings surrounding RtI intervention time. RMG is a small school;
therefore it is the opinion of the researcher that ongoing participation in the remediation group
may have caused students perception to change as their peers were exposed to alternative RtI
models.
Teacher interviews.
Teacher interviews (Appendix F) took place informally, and included a formal interview
at the culmination of the research.
Interviews were designed to reveal the impact of
interventions on students education in general, as well as teacher perspectives on their preferred

model, reasons behind the preferences, and general attitudes and opinions toward RtI. Teacher
interviews served to ascertain teachers observations pertaining to student variables, as well as
teachers own attitudes and opinions.
information from interviews can serve as the
methodological core against which observational data can feed ongoing informal interviews
(Agar, 1980; as cited in Mills (2014, p. 88).
Learning style profile.

A learning style profile (Appendix G) was administered in order to ascertain a positive
correlation between interventions and a students preferred mode of learning. The Renzulli
Learning Profile Survey for middle school students was administered to each sixth grade student
30
through the process of guided instruction in order to ensure valid results based on individual
student preferences.
Demographic data collection.
The collection of student specific demographic data from the Powerschool (2014)
database aided in the observation of correlations between student characteristics and the success
of an intervention. Data in this category includes: gender, gifted/special needs, free and reduced,
learning preferences, as well as prior achievement data.
Validity, Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and Confirmability
Of particular concern are the validity, credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability of the research data.
Validity refers to the degree to which scientific
observations actually measure or record what they purport to measure (Pelto & Pelto, 1978, p.
33; as cited in Mills, 2014, p. 114). As in most classroom based action research the goal is not
necessarily generalizability, as the sample is not large enough, the research time frame not long
enough, and random assignment to control and experimental groups not always possible. To
reinforce the potential for increased validity Wolcotts (1994, as cited in Mills, 2014) strategies
were heeded. The validity of our action research depends on whether the solutions to a
problemactually solves our problem (Mills, 2014, p. 115).
Guba (1981; as cited in Mills, 2014) cites credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability as characteristics of a study indicating trustworthiness and therefore validity.
Credibility in the proposed study was addressed through the researchers longevity at the research
site, informal as well as final summative interviews with the researchers colleagues, observation
of the proposed interventions, triangulation of data (Appendix H), and the collection of raw data.
Transferability was addressed through detailed demographic data concerning the research site as
31
well as the research participants. Dependability was addressed through the Mixed-Methods
design as well as triangulation of data. Confirmability was addressed through the triangulation
and analysis of data to obtain information pertaining to positive correlations.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data was summarized using an excel spreadsheet (Appendix I). The data
includes pre and post achievement assessment results by intervention, student learning
preferences, as well as prior achievement assessment results.
Demographic data includes
socioeconomic status, gender, and participation in special or gifted education. Qualitative data
gleaned from Likert Scale Comments, and teacher interviews, is summarized and presented in
narrative form.
Analysis of the data follows in the form of a written narrative referencing information
from both quantitative and qualitative sources. Results from each intervention are compared and
interrelationships of data examined and discussed. Correlations as well as variables impacting
data outliers are cited. Lastly each intervention was compared in order to ascertain that which
most positively impacted achievement. This is summarized and reported as pertaining to research
outcomes as well as the noting of common themes between the results of the field research and
literature review (Mills, 2014).
In order to protect the privacy of study participants, names of students were replaced with
numbers, and designated by Homeroom A and Homeroom B. Correlational information is kept
in the researchers locked file cabinet with other confidential student information. Teachers are
designated by homeroom A or homeroom B. Participants are identifiable by the researcher only.
Sample Selection
32
Study participants include a cohort of sixth grade students, along with their homeroom
teachers. The cohort consists of 33 Caucasian students, 12 female and 21 male. Approximately
50% of this population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. This cohort was chosen because they
represent a large range in variability pertaining to generalizable characteristics. Teachers were
chosen based on the fact that they are interested and vested in the outcome of this research.
Above this the teachers of this cohort are in advanced stages of professional development
pertaining to Professional Learning Communities and Response to Intervention blocks.
Methodology Summary
It is the hope of this researcher that the Mixed Methods Design, which focuses on the
integration and analysis of detailed qualitative and quantitative research, was successful in
increasing the validity, reliability, and generalizability of this action research project.
Quantitative data, used to ascertain achievement levels and attitudes as applied to various
characteristics of the student population, along with qualitative data, which has the potential to
reinforce correlational findings, allowed the researcher to present raw data, make assumptions
based on interpretations and correlations, and further validate these assumptions.
Results
To ascertain the impact of the Response to Intervention academic intervention on students
of varying abilities, the grade 6 class at Roy M. Gallant Elementary School was exposed to three
different RtI models. Math was selected as the impact topic. Data collected included both
qualitative and quantitative data in the form of teacher interviews, and Likert Scales, as well as
achievement and demographic data.
33
Findings
The sixth grade class at Roy M. Gallant Elementary School consists of thirty-four
students, 21 are male, and 12 are female. Of these students valid data was obtained for twentyseven students, 16 males and 11 females (Appendix I). Reasons for non-inclusion of student data
included absenteeism, as well as the inappropriateness of the assessments used for data collection
for those students possessing certain exceptionalities. Of those students for whom valid data
was obtained, four are identified having Individual Education Plans (IEPs) that include
accommodations due special needs, and four are identified as having Individual Learning Plans
(ILPs) that include modifications due to giftedness.
According to the Free and Reduced Lunch Report data (PowerSchool, 2014) twelve
students are eligible for free lunch, two for reduced, and two are full pay. The remaining
students did not have recorded status and therefore it could be assumed that these students
represent the full pay category as well. Based on this assumption 52 % of the students belonging
to this cohort live in poverty. However the validity of this figure is questionable based on the
fact that several reasons for non-submission of the school lunch forms may exist including the
inability of the parent to read or write.
Students were assessed for preferred mode of learning using the Renzulli Learning Style
Inventory (Appendix G) (Renzulli, Smith, & Rizza, 2002). Six students cited direct instruction
as their preferred mode of learning, three cited discussion, five independent study, two peer
teaching, four projects, two simulations, three teaching games, and two technology.
Northwest Evaluation Association data revealed that in math six students performed
within the 50th percentile and below. Ten students performed between the 53rd and 87th
percentiles, and eleven between the 90th and 99th percentiles.
34
As stated, the primary objective of this action research project was to ascertain the impact
of Response to Intervention Models on the achievement of students of different ability levels,
particularly those not in need of remediation. Interventions included small group remediation,
simulated differentiated math instruction through Moby Max computerized math program, and
an off topic enrichment activity in the form of a Science Web Quest.
Math assessments were
administered to all groups prior to and at the culmination of each intervention (Appendix I).
Intervention model 1 math assessment results.
Thirteen of twenty-seven students participated in intervention one, small group
remediation, during the Model 1 (Moby Max) intervention. Of this population four students
declined, eight experienced growth, and one showed neither growth nor decline. The Moby Max
enrichment group consisted of the remaining fourteen students. Of this population five students
declined and nine students experienced growth. Of the four students identified as being gifted,
two declined and two demonstrated growth.
Intervention model 2 math assessment results.
Twenty-three of twenty-seven students participated in intervention one small group
remediation, during the Model 2 (Science Web Quest) intervention. Of this population two
students declined and twenty-one demonstrated growth. The Science Web Quest enrichment
group consisted of the remaining four students. 100 percent of those students participating in the
science web quest enrichment activity experienced growth.
Likert scales.
Likert Scales (Mills, 2014) (Appendices B, C, D, E) were administered to all students at
the culmination of the Model 1 intervention, and again at the culmination of the Model 2
intervention. A semantic differential (Mills, 2014) was used in order to obtain quantitative data
35
followed by qualitative data in the form of brief survey questions. The purpose of the scale was
to monitor students attitudes toward each intervention, as well as give the researcher insight as
to student feelings surrounding RtI intervention time.
Likert scales remediation during model 1 (Appendix B).
Of those students who experienced admission to the remediation group at some point
during the first half of the study (Model 1 Moby Max intervention), four indicated that the
intervention was boring, and two found the intervention unenjoyable. Seven students remained
neutral. Four students found the intervention exciting and seven found it enjoyable. Reasons
cited by this group for liking learning labs are: increased learning (5 respondents), enjoyment of
computer time, enjoyment of Moby Max, and enjoyment of learning labs if the student liked the
activity. Reasons given for disliking learning lab time included: disliking Moby Max, liking
Moby Max but not having an opportunity to participate (2), generally finding learning labs
unenjoyable (2), and being good at math and therefore being placed erroneously in the
remediation group.
Three students agreed that they learned more in a learning lab than in regular math class,
five students disagreed, and four were neutral. When asked if the students felt that they
understood the material better after participating in a learning lab seven disagreed, five agreed
and one remained neutral. Seven students disagreed with feeling more comfortable in the
classroom after participating in a learning lab while one agreed and five remained neutral.
Four students indicated that they would prefer to use learning lab time in another way,
three indicated that they preferred things the way they were, and four were neutral. When asked
how students would prefer to design learning labs responses included: math games, math sheets
which represent challenge pertaining to something already learned, Study Links online, more
36
active activities, help with questions, more days with learning labs, liking it the way it is now
(2) and liking Moby Max.
Eight of thirteen respondents spend time on Moby Max or another computerized math
program at home. Times range from not at all to an hour or more per week.
Likert scales remediation during model 2 (Appendix C).
Of those students who experienced admission to the remediation group at some point
during the second half of the study (Model 2 Science Web Quest intervention), seven indicated
that the intervention was boring, and six found the intervention unenjoyable. Eighteen students
remained neutral, while six found the intervention exciting and nine found it enjoyable.
Reasons cited by this group for liking learning labs were: they are fun (2) and useful,
improvement of skills (7), learning things on the computer (2), research, learning at ones own
pace, something different (2), feeling better about the test, and liking the jokes.
Students who disliked the learning labs cite the following reasons: sometimes I know the stuff
so its not helpful or Im bored (2), no reason, hard to start something new, boring when in the
classroom and not lab, web quest was too hard and boring, and too much like another math class.
When asked if they learned more in a learning lab than in regular math class thirteen
students disagreed, four were neutral, and six agreed. Ten felt that they did not understand the
material better after participation in a learning lab, eight felt that they had a better understanding
of the material and five remained neutral. Six students felt more comfortable in the classroom
after participating in a learning lab. Ten disagreed with this statement and seven were neutral.
Twelve students would rather use learning lab time in another way, six like the current learning
lab format, and six remained neutral. Students responded with the following when they were
asked how learning labs could be used to help with their learning: play math games (3), work in
37
groups or as a class, Moby Max or Sumdog, they improve my skills (4), more fun if we had more
work, if we looked up stuff like how to do something, more focus on ELA, I like it how it is, fun
and already helpful, more examples and make it easy to do the math, dont put people in groups
for things they already understand, and more days with learning labs. Nine of twenty-three
respondents spend time on Moby Max or another computerized math program at home. Times
range from zero to three hours. Three students have no computers or Internet.
Likert scales enrichment model 1 moby max (Appendix D).
Of those students who were part of the Moby Max enrichment group four indicated that
the intervention was boring, and four found the intervention unenjoyable. Six students remained
neutral, seven found the intervention exciting and five found it to be enjoyable.
Reasons cited by this group for liking learning labs were: working independently and at
ones own pace, working while talking with my friends, learning new things, reusing my
knowledge, Moby Max is fun, I like using white boards, I like Moby Max Competitions (2),
Learning labs are fun (2), I like being mentally challenged, and everything I do is hard.
Students who dislike the learning labs cite the following reasons: questions for 5 year olds or
they dont make sense at all, dont learn as much as in a normal math class, Moby Max requires
that you have to repeat concepts that you understand, I hate converting and Moby Max does not
explain it well.
Six students disagreed that learning labs help them with their math learning, four were
neutral, and four agreed. Six students would rather learn math in another way, five like the labs
the way that they are, and three remained neutral. When asked how learning labs could help
them with their learning students responded that: I think that they do a good job explaining the
lessons, I know most things on Moby Max until I get to a really high level,
38
learning games or a fun packet, options to choose how we learn or what we learn on Moby Max,
I like it the way it is (2), I would like learning labs with the math teacher, I would like something
different in the games section, lessons that we would enjoy while still learning, I liked Moby
Max but now I dread RTI because of converting, and more time on Moby Max. Six students
spend time on a computerized math program at home ranging from zero to two hours. Two
students have no computers.
Likert scales enrichment model 2 science web quest (Appendix E).
Of those students who were part of the Science Web Quest enrichment group two
students indicated that the intervention was boring, and two found the intervention unenjoyable.
Two students remained neutral, and one found the intervention exciting and enjoyable. When
asked if learning labs help with math learning, two students disagreed, one agreed and two
remained neutral. Students were also asked if they would prefer to use learning lab time to learn
math or another subject instead of the Science Web Quest. Two students indicated they would
not, one indicated that they would, and two remained indifferent. When asked if they preferred
the Science Web Quest over other proposed activities two students agreed that they would, one
disagreed, and two remained neutral. When questioned further if the student would prefer yet
another way to use learning lab time two agreed that they would, one disagreed, and two
remained neutral. Students were asked if they preferred Moby Max or the Science Web Quest.
Four students preferred Moby Max and one preferred the Web Quest. Students were also asked
if they would prefer enrichment activities or Moby Max rather than having their regular class
during learning lab time. Two students responded with the enrichment choice and three
responded that either would be fine.
39
Students were given an opportunity to state how they would design learning labs if
allowed. Students responded with the following: more activities, students could choose what
they wanted to learn on their skill level, students could choose homework, web quest or Moby
Max, Sumdog for math and Connect Ed for ELA and Science.
Students were also asked if they would prefer to remain in a regular class with another
teacher while their teacher worked with students who may need extra help. Students responded
with one yes, three nos and one preferring independent work.
Teacher Interviews (Appendix F)
Teachers were interviewed through the use of a questionnaire, as well as through informal
conversations. As stated previously interviews were designed with the goal of obtaining teacher
perspectives and general attitudes and opinions toward RtI and the proposed models. Teacher
interviews also served to ascertain teachers observations pertaining to student variables.
Both teachers agree that the RtI instructional strategy will be of great benefit to students,
especially those who participate in small group remediation. Teacher A feels that computerized
programs which challenge students at their individual levels of learning may be a good fit for the
enrichment groups, while teacher B is not yet sure of the best model. Through informal
conversations I have ascertained that both teachers are anxious to continue research into more
potential enrichment models.
Teacher A described the remediation group as a pleasure to work with. She stated that
they were aware of the purpose for the group and worked well during the RtI time. Teacher B
described the remediation group as being excited to receive extra help. She also cited that a
student insisted that he was admitted to the remediation group by mistake, and was upset about
missing out on the enrichment activity. He was also worried about what his peers and teachers
40
would think about his membership in this group. Most of the students saw the value of the RtI
block and were not concerned with missing the enrichment activity.
Both teachers described the enrichment group as really enjoying Moby Max (Model 1
intervention) math on their laptops. Teacher A stated that was widely referred to as fun.
Teachers cited that the program targeted skills being taught in class at the students challenge
level while addressing Common Core Standards. Both teachers also agreed that the Science
based Web Quest (Model 2 intervention) was more difficult and less popular. It was mentioned
that one of the issues may have been that the students were working with support personnel
instead of their science teacher, as their science teacher (B) was working with a remediation
group. When teacher B, who is their regular science teacher, worked with the students, they
became excited about the Web Quest. As teacher B pointed out the task may be suited for higher
achieving students. She also pointed out that those students who would be in an enrichment
group for math may be in a remediation group for Language Arts or Science. Feedback from
students was clearly in favor of Moby Max.
Teachers agreed that intervention 1, the small group remediation has the most potential to
increase student achievement. Intervention 2, Moby Max, was the preferred intervention for
those that had already mastered the content. However, if science were the topic for enrichment,
more practice with Web Quest like activities may prove to be effective.
Teacher A felt that students in the remediation group were positively impacted both
academically and socially, however she did feel that students felt badly at times when they
missed the enrichment activity. Teacher B felt that social and emotional impact was negligible.
Most students receiving remediation increased in confidence, seemed grateful, and were
generally positively affected. One child struggled socially and emotionally when placed in the
41
remediation group, however through self discovery grew to realize the he did in fact need the
extra help. These teachers are wonderful at teaching the whole child and have been working
with the students to view the RtI blocks as WIN time (What I Need).
Students in the enrichment group were also impacted positively. Again teachers worked
with the students to help them understand that everyone has different needs and as Teacher B
eloquently states WIN is nothing to be ashamed of or rejoice about. WIN time is simply WIN
(What I Need) time.
When asked how RtI could be changed in order to provide the greatest benefit for our
students both teachers felt that RtI should be part of the daily schedule. Teacher A feels that all
students should work at their challenge level and in content areas being taught in the classroom.
Teacher B is looking forward to trying out more RtI models but sees value in working in Moby
Max to improve skills while meeting the requirements of the Common Core Standards. She also
sees benefit in students engaging in research, group work, and writing skills to create a finished
product while taking a deeper dive in other content areas such as science and social studies. She
feels a combination of Moby Max type as well as project based activities may be ideal.
Discussion
Three interventions were proposed with the goal of obtaining data that would positively
correlate a specific Response to Intervention model with student achievement. A necessary
variable impacting the data was the fact that within true RtI interventions students do not remain
forever in enrichment or remediation groups. Students seamlessly weave in and out based on
need dictated by curriculum-based measures.
The topic of math lends itself to increased complexity throughout a unit of study.
Therefore the remediation group during Model 1, the Moby Max intervention, was considerably
42
smaller than the remediation group during Model 2, the Science Based Web Quest. Although it
does not completely diminish the numerical effect of this, I have translated the data to
percentages. The remediation group received the same intervention throughout the study.
However, the data was separated between model 1 and model 2 interventions due to the
necessary flexibility pertaining to the learning lab student populations.
Thirteen of twenty-seven students participated in intervention one, small group
remediation, during the Model 1 (Moby Max) intervention (Appendix B). Of this population
four students (31 %) declined, eight (62%) experienced growth, and one (7 %) showed neither
growth nor decline (Appendix I).
Twenty-three of twenty-seven students participated in intervention one, small group
remediation, during the Model 2 (Science Web Quest) intervention (Appendix C). Of this
population two students declined (10%) and twenty-one (90%) demonstrated growth (Appendix
I).
The Moby Max enrichment group (Appendix D) consisted of fourteen students. Of this
population five (36%) students declined and nine (64%) students experienced growth. The
Science Web Quest enrichment group (Appendix E) consisted of four students. 100 percent of
those students participating in the science web quest enrichment activity experienced growth
(Appendix I).
Intervention 1, small group remediation, had the greatest impact on those students in need
of remediation, however of those students who were not in need of remediation the jury is still
out. Although 100% of those participating in the Science Web Quest experienced growth, this
represented just four students, while 64% of the students participating in Moby Max enrichment
experienced growth, which represents nine students.
43
Perhaps the Likert Scales (Appendix B,C, D, and E), as well as the teacher interviews
(Appendix F) have the ability to give us greater insight into which RtI block models will result in
the greatest achievement for our students. One has only to look at the Likert Scales briefly to
notice the variability in scores and preferences. Although Moby Max has a slight edge in that it
was rated by students as being more exciting and enjoyable, many times just as many students
agree with statements pertaining to the differing models as disagree, and the rest remain without
preference.
Those remaining neutral may send the most poignant message of all. Qualitative data
indicates that students prefer, RtI programming that considers their interests and learning
preferences, to be given choices in their learning, and to be allowed to perform enjoyable tasks at
their challenge level. However, those remaining neutral are indicating, through their selection,
that they perceive that their responses are unimportant. They feel as though, in spite of being
asked, their opinions will not impact their education. Their responses wont make a difference.
Therefore the response is not worth their time or consideration.
Another aspect of this action research that stood out to me through both teacher and
student responses is the climate that has been developed through the relationship that these
teachers have developed with their students. It is evident that the teachers are teaching the whole
child throughout the whole day. One example of this is their WIN (What I Need) conversations.
Another example is in the responses of students who find it enjoyable, and desperately want to
continue, to interact with their teachers and classmates in all aspects of their school day.
In conclusion, as hypothesized, reinforced through the literature review, indicated by the
qualitative data, and as evidenced by the inconclusiveness of the quantitative data, in order to
arrive at optimum increased achievement levels for all students, Response to Intervention blocks
44
must be designed in consideration of researched best practice as carried out through high quality
curriculum, the unique qualities and characteristics of the students involved, and integrated in a
manner that represents continued learning for all students. Qualities and characteristics include
interests, learning styles, academic readiness by subject and topic, as well as exceptionalities
including giftedness, special needs, and dual exceptionalities.
Limitations
There were several limitations that may impact the validity of this action research study.
Three snow days caused late school starting times thus impacting three intervention blocks that
had to be rescheduled. This negated the ability of the researcher to act as a non -participant
observer. Absences throughout the research period often made it impossible for students to make
up assessments crucial to data collection. This impacted the number of students participating in
the study.
Initially, it was intended for the remediation group and the enrichment groups to be
mutually exclusive. Variability in student participation, including the time frames within
alternative groups, which represented separate interventions and RtI models, did not lend itself to
the acquisition of concrete data. However, without this protocol we would not be simulating a
true RtI intervention. Consideration must be taken toward this aspect in order to minimize its
impact during future action research.
The math assessment given at the end of the study was different from the assessment
given as pre and post during the study. The validity of the original pre and post came into
question when students began scoring lower on the post assessment than they did on the same
assessment given as a pre-assessment. It came to light that many students (especially those who
are high performing) were putting down answers that they knew to be correct without going
45
through necessary steps in creating graphs, causing them to lose overall points. Consideration in
assessment design will need to be looked at prior to doing further research.
Summary and Further Research
The literature review culminated in the finding of few articles pertaining to the impact of
differing models of the Response To Intervention academic strategy on the achievement of those
students who were not in need of remediation. The literature review did however reveal several
concerns pertaining to those models currently used as enrichment for on grade level students,
during the times that those students in need of remediation benefitted from small group
instruction. Of special concern were those activities suggested for the enrichment group that all
students would enjoy and should be privy to. Also of concern is the educational efficacy of those
activities assigned that to the enrichment group with the goal of holding these students until
those in need of remediation are ready to move on.
The goal of the action research was to compare enrichment models in order to ascertain that
which represents best practice pertaining to those students operating on or above grade level. The
action research completed for RMG Elementary School attempted to replicate the three-tiered
approach, which the literature points to as being widely implemented in schools throughout the
nation. The data, as in many research studies, supports the fact that the Response To Intervention
educational strategy is one of the most effective strategies for increasing student achievement for
those students in need of remediation. However, data pertaining to the impact of the varying
models of intervention for those students performing on or above grade level failed to reveal
conclusive results.
The study did however affirm the researchers general hypothesis that Response to
Intervention Blocks will have the effect of increasing achievement for students only when
46
designed in consideration of researched best practice as carried out through high quality
curriculum. Above this, the unique qualities of all students including those with special needs,
dual exceptionalities, and giftedness must be taken into consideration. These qualities represent
not only students varying levels of ability pertaining to different skills and topics, but also
individual learning styles as well as areas of interest.
Much of the qualitative data pointed to student preferences, which include enjoyment of
learning, choices in what is learned and how it is learned, and academic challenge. This may
support the literature review, which indicates that integrated curriculums may be warranted.
Designed appropriately this type of curriculum, albeit time consuming to construct, may alleviate
the concern that Response to Intervention models dictate that education for some be traded out
for off topic enrichment activities that are questionable concerning continued learning.
Integrated programming may work to allow students choice and increased enjoyment in their
learning, while continuing to grow in their education.
Further research is needed to ascertain the impact of differing RtI models pertaining to
the achievement of those students who are working at or above grade level. Questions pondered
as part of this action research remain unanswered. Would it be more beneficial for students
working on or above grade level pertaining to the topic at hand to participate in enrichment
activities? Would it be more beneficial for the aforementioned students to remain in the
classroom to work to a deeper depth and level of complexity of knowledge on topic? Would it be
more beneficial for these students to be allowed to participate in interest based, real world
application, academically integrated research projects?
Further research, although necessarily gravitating away from fidelity to the RtI model,
would further confine groups of students in order to obtain valid data. During this action
47
research study, students moved, as in typical Response to Intervention protocol, in and out of
remediation and enrichment groups depending on the time frame within which the individual
student mastered the topic at hand. This skewed both the qualitative and quantitative data
because students may have participated in enrichment or remediation groups during data
collection for any of the three models for undistinguishable periods of time. It is recommended
that continued research dictate that students remain participants within a group for the entire time
period during which a unit is covered. Because the remediation model has already been
researched extensively, altering this model for those students who gain mastery during an
intervention, will not impact the research as long as they remain quarantined from those students
participating in the non-remediation models. This along with an extended time frame may allow
for gathering more reliable data pertaining to the individual models being researched. Based on
this action research, the researcher recommends that future models include the computerized
model that replicates the differentiated classroom through which students work on topic at their
challenge level while being exposed to high quality curriculum, as well as a model which
includes an integrated curriculum based on student choice, while incorporating the learning
preferences, interests, and ability levels of the students involved
Action Plan
This research will be shared with administration, the Professional Learning Communities
within Roy M. Gallant, as well as interested parties within the Alternative Organizational
Structure.
The research team for this action research included two sixth grade teachers, as well as
the researcher who acts as Assistant Principal and Coordinator of Gifted and Talented Services at
Roy M. Gallant Elementary. This team has done a considerable amount of discussion and
48
reflection throughout the action research process and has decided to move forward with the
research while incorporating the parameters within the Summary and Further Research section
as listed above. This research has changed the direction that this Professional Learning
Community had considered within the proposed Response to Intervention framework.
This action research represents a work in progress. It is the hope of the researcher that
Professional Learning Communities within Roy M. Gallant, as well as the Alternative
Organization Structure at large, will use this research as a guide as they work to implement and
integrate Response to Intervention blocks into their education plans. Professional Learning
Communities will benefit from experimentation with RtI models, gathering data, and working
toward ascertaining which models work best for their students, given their individual
characteristics including developmental levels, exceptionalities and individual student
characteristics as discussed within the hypothesis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, many courses within education, including those within the University of
New England Masters in School Leadership program, as well as research in general, points to the
need for differentiation within the classroom as a necessity for efficiency in student learning. We
are taught that one must consider the impact that student characteristics have on the students
ability to consume, retain, and utilize information. Perhaps in my quest to arrive at a definitive
answer in regards to the most appropriate learning model for those students not in need of
intervention, I have arrived back at an overarching philosophy and unknowingly worked to
further prove its truth.
49
Upon finding the quantitative data pertaining to this action research inconclusive, one has
only to review the qualitative data, as well as the literature, to find that students, teachers, and
researchers are reinforcing what we already know to be true. Enjoyment, and therefore
efficiency, in learning can be attained by guiding students in a manner that takes into
consideration the unique characteristics of the child, including exceptionalities, preferred
learning style, interest, and readiness. Models for learning, whether as part of RtI Tier 1, 2, or 3
interventions, should include considerations pertaining to the individual child. Given these
parameters, there may not exist one model that represents effective programming for those
students performing on or above grade level, instead there may be many successful models,
many aspects of which the students themselves are capable of designing. Further research is
needed in order to attempt to conclude overall best practice pertaining to RtI models for those
students not in need of intervention. However it is the view of the researcher that this action
research has resulted in conclusions pertaining to those student characteristics that must be
considered in designing models for further research.
References
Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2012). Clustered for Success. Educational Leadership, 69(5),
41-45.
Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RtI
framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14-17. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203257834?accountid=12756
Curriculum-Based Measurement | Especially for Teachers | At School. (n.d.). Retrieved
50
October 11, 2014, from http://ncld.org/students-disabilities/ld-educationteachers/curriculum-based-measurement

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Gifted students' perspectives on an instructional framework for
school improvement. National Association of Secondary School
Principals.NASSPBulletin, 96(4), 285-301. Retrieved from
Fragale, J. (2014). A Strategic Plan for Overcoming The Achievement/Poverty Correlation.
Unpublished manuscript, University of New England
Green, J., Matthews, S., Carter, E., Fabrizio, J., Hoover, J., & Schoenfeld, N. (2012). The
Diamond Model: A Unique Elementary RtI Model That Meets the Needs of All
Learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 240-245.
Hughes, C. E., & Rollins, K. (2009). RtI for nurturing giftedness: Implications for the RtI
school-based team. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 31-39. Retrieved from
Hughes, C. E., Rollins, K., Johnsen, S. K., Pereles, D. A., Omdal, S., Baldwin, L., Coleman,
M. R. (2009). Remaining challenges for the use of RtI with gifted education. Gifted
Child Today, 32(3), 58-61. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203258605?accountid=
iServices - Online Client Services. (n.d.). iServices - Online Client Services. Retrieved
May 21, 2014, from http://iservices.measuredprogress.org
Mills,G.E.(2014).Actionresearch:Aguidefortheteacherresearcher.UpperSaddleRiver,
NJ:PearsonEducation,Inc.
51
PowerSchool Administrator Sign In. (n.d.). Administrator Sign In. Retrieved May 21, 2014,
from https://aos96.powerschool.com/public/
PUBLIC Law, Chapter 313, An Act Regarding Curriculum Requirements and Standards for
Awarding a High School Diploma. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2014, from
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chapters/PUBLIC313.asp
Renzulli, J., Smith, L., & Rizza, M. (2002) The Learning Styles Inventory. [Learning style
assessment].
Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V., Shah-Coltrane, S., & Johnsen, S. K. (2009). RtI Models for
Gifted
Children. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 20-30.

Rule Chapters for the Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2014, from
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/05/chaps05.htm
The complete curriculum system! (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2014, from
http://www.mobymax.com/
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables? Theory
into Practice, 44(2), 90-97. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218801182?
accountid=12756
Yssel, N., Adams, C., Clarke, L. S., & Jones, R. (2014). Applying an RtI model for students
with learning disabilities who are gifted. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(3), 4252. Retrieved from
Appendix A
The Diamond Model
52
53
Green, J., Matthews, S., Carter, E., Fabrizio, J., Hoover, J., & Schoenfeld, N. (2012).
Figure 1. The diamond model. Two triangles of tiered interventions merge to create a single
structure that serves all students.
Permission for reproduction granted to students working on a Masters Thesis.
54
Appendix B
Remediation Student Survey
Intervention 1
Part 1 of the Study
Please check the box over the number that best describes your feelings about Learning Labs.
Homeroom A
Boring ____ __3__ _2__ __2__ ____ Exciting
1
2
3
4
5
Unenjoyable __1__ ____ __3__ __2__ __1__ Enjoyable
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Boring __1__ __1__ __1__ __2__ ____ Exciting (one student did not respond)
1
2
3
4
5
Unenjoyable __1__ ____ __1__ __3__ __1__ Enjoyable
1
2
3
4
5
I learn more in a Learning Lab than I do in a regular math class.
Homeroom A
Disagree __3__ __2__ __2__ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __1__ ____ __2__ __2__ __1__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I understand the material better after I have participated in a Learning Lab.
Homeroom A
Disagree __1__ __4__ __1__ ____ __1__ Agree

1
Homeroom B
Disagree __1__ __1__ ____ __2__ __2__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I feel more comfortable in the classroom after participating in a Learning Lab.
Homeroom A
Disagree __2__ __2__ __3__ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __1__ __2__ __2__ _1___ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I would rather use Learning Lab time to learn in another way.
Homeroom A
Disagree __2__ __1__ __2__ __1__ __1__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __2__ ____ __2__ __1__ __1__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom A
Please tell us why you like/dislike Learning Labs.
Respondent 1 (2,3,2,2,3,5)
You Learn.
Respondent 2 (2,3,1,1,2,4)
55
56
I dislike learning labs because some of the lessons on Moby Max I dont get and got them wrong.
Respondent 3 (4,4,3,3,3)
I like it cause of that there is new and different skills.
Respondent 4 (3,4,2,5,3,3)
I like it because if you dont have anything it is basically a computer time.
Respondent 5 (4,3,1,2,2,2,)
I like learning labs because it can be fun and also on Moby Max its fun doing math problems
and then getting game time.
Respondent 6 (3,5,3,2,1,1)
I like it because it helps me learn something better.
Respondent 7 (2,1,1,2,1,1)
I dont really like them but it could be more fun.
Homeroom B
Respondent 1 (2,4,5,4,3,4)
I dont like it because the other kids go on Moby Max and I like Moby Max to go on.
Respondent 2 (N/R,4,4,5,4,5)
I like learning labs because we got to sit and learn more than what we would in class.
Respondent 3 (3,3,3,2,2,3)
Well I sorta like the learning labs but it depends on what they are about if it is something that I
like then I will like the learning labs.
Respondent 4 (4,5,4,5,3,3)
I like learning labs because it helps me work on things/math problems that I do not get.
57
Respondent 5 (4,4,3,4,2,1))
I dislike learning labs.
Respondent 6 (1,1,1,1,1,1)
I hate learning labs because Im good at math so I dont need a learning lab. And it takes my
Moby Max time too.
Homeroom A
Please tell us if you have any ideas about how Learning Labs could be used to help you
with your learning.
Respondent 1
Play math games.
Respondent 2
Instead of doing Moby Max maybe we could do a math sheet like a challenge paper of
something we have learned.
Respondent 3
Having to do Study Links online.
Respondent 4
I learn best by doing it so if we did more active things I guess I think it would help.
Respondent 5
No response.
Respondent 6
No response.
Respondent 7
It could that harder and that will help with my learning.
58
Homeroom B
with your learning.
Respondent 1
Help with the questions.
Respondent 2
I like the way it is now but the only thing I would change would be having more days with
learning labs.
Respondent 3
I like the way that they are now but depending on what it is that we are learning about if I will
like it. But I like Moby Max the most.
Respondent 4
We can learn by using a quite (quiet) room and if we help us so we are not desrated (distracted)
so we can learn.
Respondent 5
No response.
Respondent 6
I dont want a learning lab.
Homeroom A
Do you spend time on Moby Max or another computerized math program at home?
Respondent 1
My Internet wont let me.so no.
Respondent 2
59
Sometimes primary games.com

Respondent 3
Yes, Sumdog
Respondent 4
Sometimes but not a lot.
Respondent 5
Sometimes
Respondent 6
No I cant I dont have any Internet
Respondent 7
I go on Moby Max Only.
Homeroom B
Respondent 1
Yes
Respondent 2
I spend time on Moby Max only at school.
Respondent 3
Sometimes but I dont have a computer at my moms to use.
Respondent 4
I spend my time on Moby Max very good but sometimes it is changing (challenging) for me.
Respondent 5
No response.
60
Respondent 6
I go on Moby Max but I cant anymore because of learning.
Homeroom A
Approximately how much time do you spend outside of school on a computerized math
program?
Respondent 1
Not at all.
Respondent 2
None ____ __X__ ____ ____ ____ A lot
Respondent 3
30 min to 1 hour
Respondent 4
I usually spend about 30 minutes every week.
Respondent 5
Maybe 15 minutes or so
Respondent 6
0 time.
Respondent 7
I dont spend a lot of time on them.
Homeroom B
program?
Respondent 1
61
Not a lot.
Respondent 2
I dont go on computerized math programs at school.
Respondent 3
Maybe an hour a week.
Respondent 4
I spend on Moby Max about one hour or more a week but sometime I do not get a changes
(chance).
Respondent 5
No response.
Respondent 6
None
Appendix C
Remediation Student Survey
Intervention 1
Part 2 of the Study
Homeroom A
Boring __1__ __2__ _4__ __2__ ____ Exciting
1
2
3
4
5
Unenjoyable ____ __3__ __3__ __1__ _1__ Enjoyable (One no response)
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Boring __2__ __2__ __7__ __1__ _2__ Exciting (one student did not respond)
1
2
3
4
5
Unenjoyable __2__ __1__ __4__ __4__ __3__ Enjoyable
1
2
3
4
5
I learn more in a Learning Lab than I do in a regular math class.
Homeroom A
Disagree __4__ __1__ __3__ __1__ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __3__ __5__ __1__ __2__ __3__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I understand the material better after I have participated in a Learning Lab.
Homeroom A
Disagree __4__ __3__ __2__ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __3__ ____ __3__ __5__ __3__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I feel more comfortable in the classroom after participating in a Learning Lab.
Homeroom A
Disagree __2__ __1__ __4__ __2__ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
62
63
Disagree __2__ __5__ __3__ _2___ _2__ Agree

1
2
3
4
5
I would rather use Learning Lab time to learn in another way.
Homeroom A
Disagree ____ __2__ __2__ __3__ __2__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __2__ __2__ __4__ __1__ __6__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom A
Respondent 1 (1,3,3,2,3,5)
You Learn.
Respondent 2 (3,N/A, 1,2,1,3)
Well I think learning labs is really fun and useful but, if we learned by working in groups or
having fun class games together I would like it better.
Respondent 3 (2,3,3,3,4,4,)
Learning labs is ok because I improve skills, but its just math.
Respondent 4 (2,2,1,1,2,5)
Sometimes I dislike it because sometimes I know the stuff and it gets boring but I sort of feel
better about the test.
Respondent 5 (4,4,2,2,3,2)
I like learning labs because it helps me understand more things that I have troubles with in math
class.
Respondent 6 (3,2,1,1,3,2)
64
I dont know I guess I am in the middle.

Respondent 7 (3,2,3,1,4,4)
I like learning labs because it helps me understand things better.
Respondent 8 (3,3,4,3,3,4)
I like it cause you get to learn things on the computer and review.
Respondent 9 (4,5,1,1,1,3)
I like it because I like researching things and I like using the computers.
Homeroom B
Respondent 1 (3,2,1,3,3,1)
Its ok because it helps me a little
Respondent 2 (3,4,5,4,2,1)
I like the learning labs because I could go at my own pace! I dislike the learning lab, well, in no
way, I really liked it.
Respondent 3 (2,3,1,3,3,2)
I dont know.
Respondent 4 (4,4,2,4,2,2)
It is ok because it is something different.
Respondent 5 (3,3,3,3,3,3)
Dislike
Respondent 6 (3,4,2,1,4,3,)
I like learning labs because it is something different than regular classes so it catches my
attention.
65
Respondent 7 (3,5,4,5,2,3)
I dislike learning labs because it is hard to start something new.
Respondent 8 (3,3,5,4,2,3)
Like because u can learn more.
Respondent 9 (3,3,2,4,1,5)
Theyre kind of boring when youre in the class but kind of fun when you werent.
Respondent 10 (1,1,1,1,1,5)
I do not like learning labs because I already understood what I was doing so it was not helpful.
Respondent 11 (2,4,2,1,2,5)
I dont like learning lab because the Web Quest was hard and a little boring.
Respondent 12 (5,5,4,5,4,5)
I like learning labs because I felt like I got to understand more than I do during math classes.
Respondent 13 (1,1,2,4,5,5)
I think it is boring because it is like having another math class.
Respondent 14 (5,5,5,5,5,5)
Because of the jokes
Homeroom A
with your learning.
Respondent 1
Play math games.
Respondent 2
66
Working in groups or as a class. Playing math games together.

Respondent 3
Learning labs helps improve my skills.
Respondent 4
Moby Max or Sumdog
Respondent 5
Learning Labs help me with my learning because it helps me understand math.
Respondent 6
If it helps me with multiplication.
Respondent 7
It could be more fun have more work.
Respondent 8
If we looked up stuff like how to do something.
Respondent 9
No response.
Homeroom B
with your learning.
Respondent 1
I need help in ELA (English Language Arts).
Respondent 2
Sorry, I have no ideas I just like it how it is. It is fun already and its very helpful.
Respondent 3

No
Respondent 4
I dont have any ideas.
Respondent 5
Nope
Respondent 6
No response
Respondent 7
To make it example to how to do it or make easy way to do the math.
Respondent 8
Do it together.
Respondent 9
No I dont.
Respondent 10
I dont think you should put people in groups for things they already understand.
Respondent 11
I dont know.
Respondent 12
I think we should have more days with learning labs.
Respondent 13
Play a math game or something fun so that it wont be that boring.
Respondent 14
It lets me information of the pages.
67
68
Homeroom A
Respondent 1
No
Respondent 2
Yes I do and I like Moby Max (picture of a fish).
Respondent 3
At home I spend time on Sumdog.
Respondent 4
Not a lot.
Respondent 5
I spend time on nothing because I have no computer or Internet at home but I would spend time
on Moby Max and Sumdog too.
Respondent 6
I dont have Internet.
Respondent 7
No, I dont have a computer at home.
Respondent 8
Yes, sometimes Sumdog.
Respondent 9
Sometimes
Homeroom B

Respondent 1
Moby Max, Sumdog, Brainpop, Connect Ed, McGraw Hill.
Respondent 2
Yes, I do *Sumdog *Moby Max *Kid learning math games.
Respondent 3
No
Respondent 4
No
Respondent 5
Moby Max
Respondent 6
No
Respondent 7
Moby Max
Respondent 8
Sometimes
Respondent 9
No
Respondent 10
No, I do not spend time on a math program at home.
Respondent 11
I spend around 30 minutes a week to two week a day on Moby Max.
69
70
Respondent 12
No
Respondent 13
No
Respondent 14
Yes, because whenever I dont have homework I get on my computer and do it.
Homeroom A
program?
Respondent 1
Not at all.
Respondent 2
Not much at all probably like 10 minutes.
Respondent 3
I spend about 2-3 hours on Sumdog per week.
Respondent 4
None ____ __X__ ____ ____ ____ A lot
Respondent 5
None because I dont have a computer or Internet outside of school.
Respondent 6
I dont have Internet.
Respondent 7
None
71
Respondent 8
30 min.
Respondent 9
About 15 to 20 minutes
Homeroom B
program?
Respondent 1
Not much, only on Fridays.
Respondent 2
At least 45 minutes every Wednesday and sometimes Thursday.
Respondent 3
0
Respondent 4
0
Respondent 5
0%
Respondent 6
No
Respondent 7
Only if I could us a computer outside I would play a in a hour.
Respondent 8
Not a lot.
72
Respondent 9
None
Respondent 10
I do not spend time outside of school on a computerized math program. I do not particularly
enjoy math.
Respondent 11
About 30 minutes.
Respondent 12
I dont go on math programs outside of school.
Respondent 13
Never
Respondent 14
Not that much.
73
Appendix D
Moby Max Student Survey
Model 1
Intervention 2
Homeroom A
Boring
__1__ ____ __ 2__ __2__ ____

1
2
3
4
5
Exciting
Unenjoyable ____ ____ __3__ __1__ __1__ Enjoyable

1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B

Boring
__2__ __1__ __1__ __3__ __2__

1
2
3
4
5
Exciting
Unenjoyable __2__ __2__ ____ __1__ __4__ Enjoyable

1
2
3
4
5
Learning Labs help me with my Math learning.
Homeroom A
Disagree __1__ __2__ __1__ ____ __1__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __1__ __2__ __3__ _3___ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I learn as much during a Learning Lab as I do in a regular math class.
Homeroom A
Disagree __2__ ____ ____ __1__ __2__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __4__ __1__ _2_ ____ __2__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I would rather learn math in another way.
Homeroom A
Disagree ____ __1__ __2__ __1__ __1__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __4__ ____ __1__ ____ __4__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom A
74
75

I like Learning Labs because it gives everyone the chance to learn at their own speed and pace. I
also like working independently so I like Moby Max.
Its either that the questions are for 5 year olds or they dont make sense at all.
I like learning labs because I can work and talk with my friends. Its pretty similar to the things I
know.
Learning Labs are fun but we dont learn much like normal math class.
Respondent 5 (3,3,3,5,5,)
I enjoy learning labs because on certain levels I am learning new things and on others I am
reusing my knowledge. What I dont like about learning labs is that when you understand the
concept and can do it well, they still have you repeat it about 8 times. This is all on Moby Max.
Homeroom B
No response.
I like Moby Max because it is fun and if I fail the lesson I look at the the hints and see how to do
it.
76
I like Learning Labs because Mrs. Maker lets us use white boards. I also like the Moby Max
competitions because I learn math in a competitive way.
I like learning labs because they are fun. Theyre fun because we get mentally challenged.
Respondent 5 (2,2,3,1,3) (identified special needs)
Like is
No Response
Respondent 7 (5,5,3,1,5) (identified special needs)
Because everything I do is hard
I dont like learning labs because everything I get to do is converting, and I absolutely hate
converting. When I do Moby Max the converting with miles and feet is fine but with the
kilometers and millimeters and things like that its really boring. It doesnt explain these things
well so I end up having to do the same lesson several times because I do not understand how to
do it.
Well I like learning labs because I get to go on Moby Max. Also I thrive to get badges and so far
I have 31 badges.
Homeroom A
with your math learning.
Respondent 1
77
I think it does a pretty good job explaining how to do each lesson, so we arent clueless about
what to do.
Respondent 2
No idea.
Respondent 3
Well it cant really. I know most of the things on Moby Max until a really high level.
Respondent 4
Well for learning labs maybe we could do some learning games or maybe we could have a fun
learning packet.
Respondent 5
If on Moby Max you had the option to choose what you want to learn, then it might help me
more. Some of the topics I already understand, yet its making me redo it.
Homeroom B
with your math learning.
Respondent 1
No response
Respondent 2
I like how it is right now.
Respondent 3
It prepares me for lessons that will come up in math.
Respondent 4
No, I dont have any ideas except if we had it with the math teacher.
78
Respondent 5
It is fun.
Respondent 6
No response
Respondent 7
I want something different in the games section.
Respondent 8
I think you should be able to give us lessons that we might actually enjoy while still learning.
Before I got to the part of converting I liked Moby Max but now I dread RTI because the
converting is very annoying because I dont understand how to do it.
Respondent 9
I like the learning lab as they are and I want more time on Moby Max.
Homeroom A
Respondent 1
I spend some time on Moby Max and Sumdog at home.
Respondent 2
No
Respondent 3
Yes, I do work a little bit on Moby Max on my Kindle Fire (Sad graphics though picture of sad
face)
Respondent 4
79
When Im not busy I do math man at home. Also sometimes I do Sumdog, and Moby Max when
I get a chance.
Respondent 5
I will sometimes do on Moby Max at home, but I typically go on Sumdog.
Homeroom B
Respondent 1
No response
Respondent 2
No, because I dont have a computer but sooner or later Im going to get one and I would
probably go on Moby Max at home.
Respondent 3
Yes I will spend time on Moby Max at home and if all my work is done I will do Moby Max at
Edge.
Respondent 4
No I dont usually go on a computer.
Respondent 5
No response
Respondent 6
No response
Respondent 7
No I dont have a computer
Respondent 8
80
No I dont spend time on Moby Max or anything like that at home because I do not like math. I
like doing Sumdog but I do not do it at home.
Respondent 9
Sometimes I go on Moby Max at home.
Homeroom A
program?
Respondent 1
I spend maybe one hour a week on a computerized math game, mostly because I have a lot of
things going on.
Respondent 2
0, Nata, Xnay
Respondent 3
20 minutes, 4 days a week.
Respondent 4
Not a lot. I really dont like math computer games that much. But sometimes I do.
Respondent 5
The time varies whenever I go on.
Homeroom B
program?
Respondent 1
No response
81
Respondent 2
Never
Respondent 3
10 to 40 minutes at the most and the least.
Respondent 4
Hardly ever
Respondent 5
30 min
Respondent 6
No response
Respondent 7
Not at all
Respondent 8
Occasionally I go on Sumdog when Im bored for like 20 min. but I dont like many other math
games.
Respondent 9
About an hour or two.
82
Appendix E
Web Quest Student Survey
Model 2
Intervention 3
Homeroom A
Boring
____ __1__ __ 2__ __1__ ____

1
2
3
4
5
Exciting
Unenjoyable ____ __1__ __2__ ____ __1__ Enjoyable

1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Boring
__1__ ____ ____ ____ ____ Exciting

1
2
3
4
5
Unenjoyable ____ __1__ ____ ____ ____ Enjoyable

1
2
3
4
5
Learning Labs help me with my Math learning.
Homeroom A
Disagree __1__ ____ __2__ __1__ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree __1__ ____ ____ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
83
I prefer to use Learning Lab time to learn math or another subject through Moby Max.
Homeroom A
Disagree ____ __2__ __1__ __1__ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree ____ ____ _1_ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I prefer to use Learning Lab time to work on enrichment activities, like the science web quest.
Homeroom A
Disagree __1__ __3__ __2__ __1__ __1__ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree ____ ____ __1__ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
I would prefer to use Learning Lab time to learn in another way.
Homeroom A
Disagree ____ __1__ __1__ __2__ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Homeroom B
Disagree ____ ____ __1__ ____ ____ Agree
1
2
3
4
5
84
Homeroom A
Please tell us which type of activity you preferred, Moby Max or the Science Web Quest.
Respondent 1 (2,2,1,3,1,3)
Moby Max is way better than web quest.
Respondent 2 (3,3,4,4,2,4))
I liked Moby Max more. It wasnt as interesting.
Respondent 3 (3,3,3,2,4,2)
Moby Max
Respondent 4 (4,5,3,5,2,4)
I liked Moby Max better because it makes people excited about getting rewards for their work.
Homeroom B
Please tell us which type of activity you preferred, Moby Max ore the Science Web Quest.
I preferred the Science Web Quest.
Homeroom A
If you could choose how to use Learning Lab time to continue your learning, how would
you design it?
Respondent 1
More activities I guess.
Respondent 2
I would design it so kids could go on Sumdog, Moby Max, ALEKS, or getting help form the
teacher.
Respondent 3
85
I would make it so instead of getting assigned something, I would make it so that the student
could choose what they wanted to learn on their skill level.
Respondent 4
I would let people choose if they wanted to catch up on homework or do a Web Quest, or go on
Moby Max.
Homeroom B
If you could choose how to use Learning Lab time to continue your learning, how would
you design it?
I would give kids Sumdog time for math and Connect ED for ELA and Science.
Homeroom A
Would you prefer to have your regular class with another teacher while your teacher works
with students who may need extra help?
Respondent 1
I guess.
Respondent 2
No
Respondent 3
No, because I like to work with my teacher during regular class time.
Respondent 4
I think doing the Moby Max or Web Quest let kids teach themselves for a change.
Homeroom B
Would you prefer to have your regular class with another teacher while your teacher works
with student who may need extra help?
86
No
Homeroom A
Would you prefer to work on enrichment activities or Moby Max rather than have your
regular class during learning lab time?
Respondent 1
Enrichment activities.
Respondent 2
Yes
Respondent 3
I would rather do Moby Max or enrichment activities because we already have a special period
for learning labs.
Respondent 4
I would rather do Moby Max and enrichment activities because you have more freedom to teach
yourself in a different way.
Homeroom B
Would you prefer to work on enrichment activities or Moby Max rather than have your
regular class during learning lab time?
I would like enrichment activities, but no Moby Max.
87
Appendix F
Teacher Interview Questions
What are your feelings about the Response to Intervention Academic Instructional
Strategy?
Homeroom A Teacher
I feel that the RTI Academic Instructional Strategy is a great time to work with students on gaps
in their learning. When students use a math program like Moby Max, they are consistently
challenged with new concepts and they can relearn other concepts that may have been forgotten.
When I take students out of the classroom to work in a small group on their skills form the week,
I feel like I can provide much needed attention to the struggling students.
Homeroom B Teacher
I believe that RTI has been and will be a great benefit to our students. The students receiving
small group direct instruction will be able to work with the teacher to find the misconceptions or
the lacking skills that are preventing them from achieving their academic goals. It is going to be
88
a lot of work on the part of the teachers to plan and provide materials for the groups. I am not
sure what the best strategy is for providing the RTI time, yet I feel our team is passionate and
committed to helping all students and will work to meet everyones needs. By the end of the
year we will have tried several different models and that will guide us in our plan for next year.
What were your observations pertaining to the Student Research Groups?
The Remediation Group?
Homeroom A Teacher
The remediation groups were a pleasure to work with. They understood the reason they were
there was to practice and get help with difficult math problems and new concepts that they hadnt
yet mastered. Students worked well during this time. They had a packet of three pages usually
that contained practice questions. They enjoyed using whiteboards for their work.
Homeroom B Teacher
Most of the students in the remediation group were excited to get the extra help. They were
eager to answer questions and work to better their understanding of the math skills and concepts
being presented. One student was convinced he was put into the group by mistake because his
grades were good. He would work ahead to prove that he knew the information and often
proved to himself that he did not know the information. Once he accepted being in the group,
he settled in and fully participated. I think he was concerned about what other students, as well
as his teachers, would think about him being part of the RTI group. He was also upset about
missing out on the non-remediation activity. (When he stayed in the classroom he did not like
the non-remediation activity and would rather have been in the RTI group. The grass is always
greener complex.) The other RTI students were excited to work in the small group and did not
seem upset by missing what the non-RTI students were doing. I loved working with the small
89
groups. It was easy to identify the students who were understanding the concepts but had weak
math skills, those that had the math skills yet did not understand the concepts, and those
struggling with both skills and concepts. The students thanked me for working with them and
said the small groups helped them with their work.
The Non-Remediation Group?
Homeroom A Teacher
The non-remediation groups, form what I observed, really enjoyed doing Moby Max math on
their laptops. The off-subject matter they tried for the second enrichment intervention was more
difficult and less popular. I think part of the issue with the science web quest was that they
couldnt ask their science teacher for help since she was working with a remediation group.
Moby Max math on the other hand was widely referred to as fun.
Homeroom B Teacher
Most of the students in the non-remediation group seemed to enjoy working on math skills and
concepts through Moby Max. They continued to meet Common Core Standards and practice the
tasks that (Homeroom A teacher*) assigned. These assignments matched concepts that were
being taught in the math curriculum. The students appeared to be challenged and made positive
academic gains in math, taking a deeper dive. The non-remediation group who worked on the
science web quest did not seem to enjoy the activity until we began discussing what they
learned*. They became eager to share the gained information that was above and beyond what
was currently being taught in the science curriculum. I do believe the web quest was quite
challenging, the students in the non-remediation group for math may not match the students who
would be in the non-remediation group for ELA or Science. The task may have been better
suited for higher achieving academic students. There were also outdated websites, provided by
90
our science program that added to the challenge of having to search the Internet for some of the
answers. Final input form students mad it clear to me that Moby Max is fun and the science web
quest was more like work.
Which intervention do you think had the greatest potential to increase student
achievement?
Homeroom A Teacher
I definitely think that intervention 1 has the most potential to increase student achievement
because it provides student with help on what they need help on at that moment. Intervention 2
(Moby Max) was a great method for students to reach higher achievement that had already
mastered the content during class. They would dive deeper into math concepts on Moby Max
and would be sent to higher level concepts after each mastery. It has the most potential to be fun
for the kids because they can earn game time for each lesson passed. They can also be assigned
rewards as they play, called Badges and Vibes.
Homeroom B Teacher
It depends on what student achievement you are referring, math or science. The students
working on grade level with Moby Max seemed to improve their math skills and scores.
(Homeroom A Teacher *) has not shared the official results with me but the scores appeared to be
greatly improved based on preliminary results. The students that I worked with expressed a
greater understanding and confidence in the math concepts while most of the Moby Max students
appeared to be challenged and had an extra 40 minutes of math practice.
The students working on the science web quest seemed to gain a better understanding of how
cells function in the human body. They engaged in research and had the opportunity to take a
deeper dive on the topic of cells. Students were able to find answers to questions they normally
91
would not have time to research and learn about. Research, writing, communication, and group
work are all skills the web quest provided. In the end, it all comes down to precious time. The
students will benefit from the activity the non-remediation time allows them to engage in.
Based on interventions 2 and 3, which RtI model do you think had the greatest impact on
student achievement?
On grade level with Moby Max or the science web quest enrichment activity?
Homeroom A Teacher
The on grade level Moby Max has the greatest impact on student achievement.
Homeroom B Teacher
See answer above.
Which RtI model do you think that the students preferred Moby Max or the science web
quest?
Homeroom A Teacher
The students probably preferred Moby Max more.
Homeroom B Teacher
Moby Max, the web quest was too much like work.
How were students belonging to the remediation group impacted by RtI academically,
socially, and affectively?
Homeroom A Teacher
The students belonging to the remediation group were impacted in a couple of ways.
Academically, they could understand the concepts a little easier with that extra practice.
Socially, they had chances to work with teachers and students in a totally different setting than
what they were used to in their classroom. I think they were also impacted by the remediation
92
because they gained a little more confidence in math! On the other side, being picked for extra
help is not always a good thing socially. I think that the students I had felt badly sometimes
when they didnt get to stay in the classroom for enrichment.
Homeroom B Teacher
(Homeroom Teacher A) has a better response with regard to academic impact as she teaches
math. Most of the students did not seem to be affected either way with regard to social or
emotional impact. We have been discussing that it is WIN time, what I need time, and everyone
has different needs. Most of the students receiving remediation help seemed grateful and I
noticed an improvement in confidence. These students were positively affected while one
student in my group struggled with the social and emotional let down of feeling inferior because
he needed extra help. Once he realized hat he did in fact need help he had positive experience.
How were students belonging to the non-remediation groups impacted by RtI academically,
socially, and affectively?
Homeroom A Teacher
The non-remediation groups were impacted academically and social by RTI. I think that it was a
confidence boost to know that they had mastered the skill that others had struggled with. I also
think they looked forward to going on Moby Max to beat their friends and earn more game time.
Homeroom B Teacher
(Homeroom A Teacher *) did a great job picking the RTI groups. Most students were put in a
remediation group at least once while others were put in the non-remediation group at least once.
The student in the non-remediation group were certainly challenged by both Moby max and the
science web quest. The students seemed to get out of each task, the level of energy and desire to
improve themselves, as much as they put into the task. This is the first time in pulling small
93
groups out for RTI and I am pleased with the understanding hat most students showed that WIN
is nothing to be ashamed of or rejoice about. WIN time is simply WIN time.
How do you think that RtI should be changed in order to provide the greatest benefit for
our students?
Homeroom A Teacher
For the greatest benefit, RTI should be consistent and part of the daily schedule of our students.
Id like for there to be 30 minutes designated at the end of the day for students to receive
remediation help on the tasks from that same day or the day before. I think that all students
should be doing something on grade level and in the content areas that the remediation is taking
place.
Homeroom B Teacher
This is a difficult question. I hope to try out a few more RTI models this academic school year. I
see great benefit from students working on Moby Max to improve skills and meet Common Core
Standards. I also see great benefit in having students engage in research, group work, and
writing skills to create a finished product while taking a deeper dive in content areas such as
science and social studies. The students did not complete the science web quest activity but they
did engage in research, note taking, cooperative learning, and troubleshooting skills. From a
science teachers point of view, this time for the non-remediation group was valuable.
I think a combination of using both Moby Max as well as project based activities would be ideal.
Alternating between the two might be the best of all worlds. I am intrigued with the Ellsworth
model. Meeting with students for 25 minutes everyday after lunch so that all students receive
both math and ELA RTI time each week may be something to further discuss Again, those
94
students in the non-remediation group could alternate between Moby Max and project based
activities.
Appendix G
Renzulli Learning Style Profile
Sample Purchased Inventory
95
96
97
98
99
Appendix H
Data Triangulation Matrix
(Mills, 2014)
Research Questions
Data Collection Instrument

Math
Assessment
Likert
Scale
Teacher
Interviews
What impact does RtI

have on student
achievement for those
students enrolled in the
remediation group?
Math
Assessment
Teacher
Interviews
What impact does RtI as

defined by Model 1 have
on the achievement of
those students in the nonremediation group?
Math
Assessment
Teacher
Interviews
What impact does RtI as

defined by Model 2 have
on the achievement of
those students in the nonremediation group?
Math
Assessment
Teacher
Interviews
What are the teacher and

student attitudes and
opinions toward RtI
interventions?
Likert
Scale
Teacher
Interviews
What are the variables

that impact student
success pertaining to RtI
models?
Likert
Scale
Teacher
Interviews
Learning
Style
Profiles
Demographic
Data
Learning
Style
Profiles
Demographic
Data
Appendix I
Data Collection Spreadsheet
Action Research Data Sort.xlsx
100

The Impact of Response To Intervention Models Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Response To Intervention Models Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

The Impact of Response To Intervention Models

December 17, 2014

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Key Terms: Response To Intervention, ability, achievement, and model.

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Tier 1 Intervention and Dual Exceptionalities.. 15

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Validity, Creditability, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability.....28

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

The Impact of Response To Intervention Models On the Achievement Of

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Maine Law dictates rules surrounding interventions, however many

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

However, as Director of the Ventures Gifted and Talented

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

the opportunity to explore essential understanding and skills at degrees of

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

type and amount of

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

success as demonstrated by the results of a Curriculum Based Measure. Although this is to an

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Categories include: students in need of remediation, students in need of enrichment or extension,

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

The researcher, with the aid of the

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

This program simulated an ability based

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

demonstrated, and then returned to the enrichment model taking place.

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Interviews were designed to reveal the impact of

interventions on students education in general, as well as teacher perspectives on their preferred

information from interviews can serve as the

Learning style profile.

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Validity refers to the degree to which scientific

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Demographic data includes

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Math assessments were

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODELS

Disagree 2 5 3 _2___ _2__ Agree

1 2 2

Unenjoyable 3 1 1 Enjoyable

2 1 1 3 2

Unenjoyable 2 2 1 4 Enjoyable

1 2 1

Unenjoyable 1 2 1 Enjoyable

1 Exciting

Unenjoyable 1 Enjoyable