Программная реактивность обучающегося (Response to Intervention, RTI): смысл, контекст и практическое применение

Автор: Е.Л. Григоренко Московский государственный университет им. М. В. Ломоносова, Россия, Йельский университет, США

Тип статьи: методологическая

Страницы: 15-28

Ключевые слова: образование детей со специальными нуждами в США, коррекционная педагогика, специальное образование, RTI, программная реактивность обучающегося, эффективность обучающих программ.

Аннотация:

В статье кратко описываются содержание, контекст и практическая значимость понятия ‘response to Intervention’ (RTI). Это понятие возникло в результате ратификации новой версии закона о специальном образовании в США в 2004 году. За прошедшие шесть лет выполнено значительное количество экспериментальных и теоретических работ, касающихся RTI; эти работы также кратко рассматриваются. Статья завершается обсуждением русского термина, наиболее близкого по содержанию RTI, и сопоставлением RTI с другими терминами, используемыми в российской образовательной науке.

Литература

1. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 336–358.

2. Barth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K., Anthony, J. L., Denton, C. A., Mathes, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., et al. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 296–307.

3. Bradley, R., Danielson, L. E., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

4. Compton, D. L. (2008). The promise and potential challenges of RTI: Data-based evaluations of the concept and related practices. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.003]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 286–287.

5. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Elleman, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 329–337.

6. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.

7. Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009a). Response to Intervention models as alternatives to traditional views of learning disabilities: Response to the commentaries. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 48–50.

8. Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009b). Response to Intervention: Preventing and remediating academic fifficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.

9. Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students' oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.

10. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.

11. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on student achievement, pedagogy, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.

12. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.

13. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2009). On the importance of a unified model of Responsiveness to Intervention. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 41–43.

14. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989a). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55, 429–438.

15. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989b). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 10, 43–52.

16. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641.

17. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

18. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

19. Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132.

20. Grigorenko, E. L. (Ed.). (2008). Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEIA 2004 and beyond. New York, NY: Springer.

21. Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.

22. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. Springfield, IL: Springer.

23. Reschly, D. J., & Tilly, W. D. (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D. Reschly, W. Tilly & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition (pp. 19–48). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

24. Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to Intervention: Prevention and remediation, perhaps. Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 44–47.

25. Samuelsson, S., Byrne, B., Olson, R. K., Hulslander, J., Wadsworth, S., Corley, R., et al. (2008). Response to early literacy instruction in the United States, Australia, and Scandinavia: A behavioral-genetic analysis. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.004]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 289–295.

26. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., et al. (2007). Reading interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

27. Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellutino, F. R., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J. M. (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional Development for classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.002]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 346–359.

28. Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.005]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308–315.

29. Shapiro, E. S., Solari, E., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.002]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 316–328.

30. Share, D. L., McGee, R., & Silva, P. A. (1989). IQ and reading progress: A test of the capacity notion of IQ. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 97–100.

31. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.

32. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1999). Our labeled children. (What every parent and teacher needs to know about learning disabilities). Reading, MA: Perseus Publishing Group.

33. Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, R. G., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.

34. Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome. New York, NY: Guilford.

35. Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The Response to Intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in Reading First schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 38–40.

36. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.

37. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-466. Federal Register, 70, 35802–35803.

38. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). 25th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

39. U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistence to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 71, 46590–46845.

40. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multiyear evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.

41. Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., et al. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.001]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338–345.

42. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.

43. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2007). Multiple tiers of intervention: A framework for prevention and identification of students with reading/learning disabilities. In B. M. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds.), Educational interventions for struggling readers (pp. 173–196). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

44. Vaughn, S. R., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). A three-tier model for preventing reading difficulties and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. H. Haager, S. Vaughn & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 11–28). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

45. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.

46. Walker, H. M., Stiller, B., Severson, H. H., Feil, E. G., & Golly, A. (1998). First step to success: Intervening at the point of school entry to prevent antisocial behavior patterns. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 259–269.

47. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.

48. Левина, Р. Е. (2005). Нарушения речи и письма у детей. Избранные труды. Москва: Аркти.

Response to Intervention: Сontent, Context, and Practical Applications

E.L. Grigorenko

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia

Yale University, USA

This article discusses the content, context, and practical applications of the concept of «Response to Intervention» (RTI). This concept entered the vocabulary of educators in the USA as a result of the re-authorization of the law delineating and supporting services for individuals with special educational needs that took place in 2004. During the six years since 2004, the literature has accumulated a number of experimental and theoretical papers about RTI; these papers are also briefly discussed here. The article concludes with a discussion of the best possible translation of RTI in Russian and a comparison of this concept with other concepts used in Russian scientific literature on education.

Key words: education of children with special needs in the USA, correctional pedagogics, special education, RTI, effectiveness of training programs.