User:AGorski28/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be evaluating the following article, Response to Intervention.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to examine the following article in order to further explore the research related to RTI and MTSS, and how both are being utilized in schools to meet the diverse needs of students. As I currently follow RTI and MTSS methods in my instruction, I was curious to uncover new information that could be used to enhance my implementation of specific supports and means of assessments. I also was eager to apply my knowledge of MTSS to identify any areas in need of improvement within the article that when revised, would help in its portrayal of credible information.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article begins with a definition of the RTI framework and an explanation of its purpose to inform appropriate support for students. While both MTSS and RTI are both utilized with a similar goal of helping to determine areas in which students need additional support, the article would have benefitted from greater distinguishing the two in its lead section. Placing a stronger emphasis on RTI could mislead readers by portraying it as the broader framework, when MTSS ultimately serves as the overarching approach that encompasses PBIS and RTI as it takes into account students’ academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs. This section could have used a specific definition of MTSS that explains the purpose of the framework and how it is implemented to help in addressing a more diverse range of student needs and supports. In this section, it could have more explicitly outlined some of the major topics that will be further discussed in the article. By providing a description of MTSS as it compared to RTI, and a brief overview of the key concepts that will be elaborated upon in the article, readers would be better able to anticipate the types of information they will be learning.

The content of the article delivers comprehensive information about overall the assessment process for monitoring student progress and using the information to determine appropriate supports for students. In the article’s “Progress Monitoring and Tiered Service Delivery” section, the article provides information that outlines the accurate assessment intervals during the school year when students are given benchmark and progress monitoring assessments to adequately measure their growth. This section also captures the purpose for giving different types of assessments to determine the extent to which students are responding to the supports that are being provided, and to inform any changes that need to be made to current interventions. When continuing to address the different tiers of support in greater detail, the article includes relevant information surrounding the intensiveness of the interventions that are often set in place to support individual students’ learning needs. It does not appear to show any bias toward a specific tier of support or method of assessment as it maintains a neutral tone. While the article provides in depth information about the RTI model, it could have benefitted from a section about how components of PBIS are also encapsulated under MTSS in order to ensure that students’ social-emotional and behavioral needs are being met, along with academic. Making this distinction in the article is critical in providing readers with a complete understanding of how MTSS is a multi-tiered approach to meeting a variety of needs that influence student learning. The article’s section about the relationship between RTI and IDEA, and the process of evaluating student performance data, reflects the ways in which RTI helps in determining the level of intensive support and services that students qualify for based on how they respond to new interventions. The final section of the article about the uses of technology in classrooms to differentiate instruction is relevant and demonstrates how technology can be utilized to help students master specific skills. The content that is included in the article provides a detailed overview of the topic of RTI as it is implemented in schools to determine the methods and supports that are provided to ultimately promote student achievement. A greater focus on MTSS and how it takes into account the RTI and PBIS frameworks, would be helpful in order to improve the content of the article.

The overall tone of the article remains relatively neutral throughout its sections, especially when defining how the RTI approach is implemented to measure student progress. Its “Progress Monitoring and Tiered Service Delivery” section uses an objective tone to describe some of the assessment intervals and methods that are followed to identify the tier of learning in which a particular student may fall, and how that data is used to inform the level of support. When describing the subjects that are often assessed in the “Description” section, the tone of the article would have benefited from more appropriate word choice. Rather than stating that the screening assessments cover “basic subjects,” the article could have described that these assessments measure a variety of foundational skills which are needed to master concepts learned in what are predominately considered to be the “tested” subjects (math, reading, writing), and help in determining the support that is offered to individual students. While the article ultimately utilized a neutral tone throughout, there did appear to be some bias in the “Support for RTI” section when stating that, “Reading difficulties is one of the most common reasons students need intervention support.” Without a proper citation, this statement can be perceived by readers as an example of opinion or bias. In order to maintain a neutral tone throughout the entire article and avoid any bias, the article could have benefitted from including referencing credible research to support its specific claims.

When analyzing the references that are included in the article, it appears that most of the research comes from a variety of sources to support some of its claims. The sources that are referenced appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors ranging from scholarly books, articles, and research journals. However, while the article includes credible sources in some places, it does also include some instances in which a claim is presented without referencing any research. Referencing the data that is used to form specific statements is necessary to prove that they are valid. In the section “Evaluating SLD Using RTI,” some citations are referenced in the initial two paragraphs, but none are referenced throughout the rest of the section to support its information. Also in the “Fidelity of Intervention” section when outlining the factors that increase and reduce the effectiveness of an intervention, the article could have benefitted from explicitly referencing where the information is from and who conducted the research. It makes the claim that, “Although the concept of fidelity of implementation is supported by research and is generally viewed as common sense, there are practical challenges associated with achieving high levels of fidelity.” However, this claim is not backed up by a valid source and could appear as an example of bias. While some sections of the article could benefit from additional references to the research, others are more successful. The “Implementation” section is particularly effective at including statistics surrounding the number of schools utilizing a response to intervention framework, along with a direct citation to the source from which the research was found. When taking a closer look at the list of sources provided at the bottom of the article, some are more outdated than others, but the majority are fairly current. The article is effective at incorporating research from a variety of sources, but including greater references to those sources would benefit the validity of certain claims.

Overall, the article is clear and easy to follow, especially when detailing the specific components and challenges of RTI. It does not appear to have any grammatical spelling errors. However, revising some of the wording that is used at certain points in the article could be beneficial in order to avoid sounding like an opinion or bias, such as in the “Support for RTI” section when stating that, “RTI is also very useful when working with students who have severe emotional problems.” Without referencing any credible research, this statement could appear as the author’s opinion. The overall organization of the article follows a logical order to deliver the information as it defines the RTI approach and how it is implemented in schools with students who have a variety of learning needs. Including additional references to the research and more information about the differences between RTI and MTSS is needed to benefit the quality and credibility of the information that is presented on the topic.

The article does not include any images or media to enhance the information that is delivered in any of the sections. However, the article could have included a diagram that helps readers visualize how RTI and PBIS both fall under the overarching framework of MTSS. Including this diagram, along with an explanation of the information, would provide a more comprehensive comparison of the approaches in relation to MTSS.

When reviewing the Talk Page, the article appears to have been given an overall C-class rating. It was part of the WikiProjects related to Psychology, Education, and Disability, where it also received a C-class rating in each of those projects. The Talk Page reflects the previous changes that have been made to improve the article by editing specific word choices to make them more appropriate. Extensive changes were made to the article in the past to eliminate examples of bias. One member highlighted that there was bias in favor of RTI, and commented that they edited the article to remove the bias. There appeared to have been some skepticism toward the “Sudbury Project” that was previously mentioned in the article. While this section no longer exists in the article, it further indicates some of the changes that have been made to improve its content by eliminating any information that may be controversial or unreliable. The most recent update to the Talk Page was made in 2016, which involved modifying an external link referenced in the article. Comparing the more extensive past edits to those which are more current helps to reflect some of the progress that has been made to strengthen the overall quality of the article. Including additional references to valid sources is critical in continuing to improve the article’s overall credibility.

The article provides extensive information on the RTI approach and how it is implemented to determine the services and interventions that are provided to promote student performance. By providing more information on MTSS, and how RTI is encompassed within its framework, readers would be able to form a broader understanding of the multi-tiered system of support that operates to help in meeting each student’s diverse learning needs. It would be helpful for this article to include a section further distinguishing the two, and addressing any overlaps or differences between the frameworks. Including additional references to reliable sources also would improve the validity of its specific claims. Making these revisions is necessary to further improve the quality of the article and its effectiveness at providing credible research on the topics as they influence the field of education.