User:AGorski28/Response to Intervention/Passionforbaking Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?   @AGorski28
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Peer review response to intervention
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Response to Intervention

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello there! Here's a brief peer review of your content in the article "Response to Intervention."

 Lead 

I found the Lead has been updated to reflect the transition from RTI to MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Supports) as the latest approach to intervention in education. The lead begins with a concise introductory sentence describing RTI's role in academic intervention. However, it lacks a brief description of the article's major sections. It's interesting to see how The Lead includes information about the shift to MTSS, which is not present in the original article. Overall, the Lead is concise and  talks about RTI and mentions the switch to MTSS without giving too many details. It keeps things clear and straightforward.

 Content 

 Tone and Balance 
 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic?  In the "description" section, relevant information has been added about Response to Intervention (RTI) within the Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) framework. This additional content offers a thorough understanding of how RTI functions in school settings.I can also see that you’ve made some changes by adding a paragraph discussing challenges schools face in implementing MTSS frameworks effectively, which is relevant to the broader discussion of fidelity in RTI or MTSS models.
 * 2) Is the content added up-to-date?   The content in the description section reflects current educational practices. Enhancing credibility could be achieved by adding a recent reference, such as "Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): A Nationwide Analysis" from the Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (2023). This reference underscores MTSS's core components, including initial screening, prevention systems, progress monitoring, and data-driven decisions. It illustrates how MTSS utilizes student data to inform interventions, assisting educators in effectively addressing academic and social-emotional needs. Additionally, the paragraph discussing challenges in implementing MTSS frameworks could benefit from more recent references to further bolster credibility.
 * 3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  In the content in the description section there doesn't seem to be any irrelevant or missing content. The text covers the key aspects of RTI and its integration with MTSS effectively.The paragraph discussing challenges in MTSS implementation provides relevant insights without any missing or irrelevant content. It complements the discussion by offering additional insights into the obstacles faced in implementing MTSS frameworks effectively.
 * 4) Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?   The text in the Description section mainly talks about RTI and MTSS frameworks without specifically mentioning equity gaps or underrepresented groups. However, RTI aims to meet the diverse needs of all students, indirectly promoting fairness in education. There's still an opportunity to highlight equity concerns within these frameworks.  While the added paragraph discussing the challenges doesn't directly discuss equity gaps or underrepresented populations, ensuring fidelity in MTSS implementation indirectly supports equity by providing consistent support to all students, regardless of their background or needs. Thus, while equity concerns aren't explicitly addressed, the paragraph remains relevant to promoting equity in education.

I feel like the article is lacking images regarding the topic of response to intervention. There seems to be a lot of description yet no media to describe more about what the topic is discussing. For example (A picture showing the different levels of support in RTI, like a pyramid with tiers or as simple as drawings to explain how RTI moves from checking students' progress to giving them extra help if they need it.) That is something the original article is lacking already and it would be useful that you add images later while editing the article live.
 * 1) Is the content added neutral?   For the most part yes, the content added about “challenges in implementing MTSS frameworks” It presents challenges faced by schools in achieving implementation fidelity of MTSS frameworks without taking a specific position or bias.For example the part that reads "Certain barriers exist in schools which affect their ability to achieve adequate implementation fidelity of MTSS frameworks”.The text simply describes challenges faced by schools without attributing blame or taking a stance on whether these barriers are good or bad therefore maintaining its neutral tone.
 * 2) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  The viewpoints presented in the added content appear to be balanced. The section discusses various challenges influencing implementation fidelity in MTSS frameworks without overemphasizing any particular viewpoint.
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?   The added content appears to present a balanced perspective, discussing challenges related to implementation fidelity in MTSS frameworks without favoring any particular viewpoint. As mentioned earlier regarding Wikipedia's equity gaps, these viewpoints suggest that the paragraph discusses challenges in MTSS implementation fairly, contributing to promoting fairness by ensuring all students receive equal support
 * 4) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?   The content added in the section maintains a neutral stance and does not attempt to sway the reader towards any particular viewpoint. Instead, it presents information about the challenges schools encounter in implementing MTSS frameworks with fidelity in an unbiased manner. This approach allows readers to draw their own conclusions without being influenced by persuasive language or bias.
 * 5)  Organization 
 * 6) * Is the content added well written ? The content added about “Challenges Influencing Implementation Fidelity” so far is well written, concise and easy to read and understand.
 * 7) * Is the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There seems to be a few errors that are not major; like for example in the following sentence in the paragraph "Certain barriers exist in schools which affect their ability" can be revised to use "that" instead of "which." It helps clarify more clearly which barriers are being talked about.  In the sentence “schools follow a series of problem-solving and informed decision making.” should be changed to “ a series of steps for” Adding “of steps for” enhances clarity and specificity, stating that schools are following a set of steps for these processes, rather than simply engaging in them.
 * 8) * Is the content added well organized?  The content added seems to be well organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic, addressing specific challenges influencing implementation fidelity in MTSS as well as potential strategies for overcoming these challenges. To ensure clarity, I suggest making it explicit that this section is an addition to the article by using bold font, as I had to revisit the live article to confirm that this was an added section.  There seems to be another change I've noticed. Under the title “Fidelity of implementation,” I've observed some minor alterations in the length of the paragraph, indicating paraphrasing. The text you wrote, in comparison to the original one, is shorter and less condensed. It provides a concise overview of factors that can reduce and increase fidelity when implementing RTI/MTSS models.   Although both texts cover similar content, the original provides a deeper understanding of the topic, offering more specific examples and explanations.  I've noticed that you made "Support for Implementation" simpler compared to "Support for RTI" in the original article. "Support for Implementation" gives a general overview of RTI support, while "Support for RTI" focuses specifically on supporting RTI implementation. You removed a sentence about eliminating unnecessary referrals,“"In addition, proponents state that RTI helps school districts by eliminating unnecessary referrals, which drain time and resources." which helps ensure that students who truly need help receive it without wasting resources.
 * 9) *  Images and Media 
 * 1) *  Sources and References 
 * 2) * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content in the added section "Challenges Influencing Implementation Fidelity" is backed up by secondary sources such as scholarly articles including peer-reviewed journals.
 * 3) * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? The content somehow reflects the challenges of implementing MTSS frameworks as described in the cited sources.
 * 4) * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem thorough as they provide detailed insights into the challenges of MTSS implementation. However, there are no links to the references accessing articles often involving using academic databases, which may not always provide direct links as some publishers might restrict it or because they require access to the database.
 * 5) * Are the sources current? Some sources lack dates, indicating they likely originate from credible, possibly journal articles that might be difficult to access. However, among the sources, the most recent one from 2023, retrieved from the "American Journal of Education," adds current relevance to the discussion of "Instructional Coordination for Response to Intervention: How Organizational Contexts Shape Tier 2 Interventions in Practice."
 * 6) * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The fidelity of implementation seems to lack sources, so it would be useful if you would add a source or two to make it more credible. Like for example this source can relate;( Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models)

 Overall impressions 

1. Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The article is more complete with the added content providing detailed information on challenges influencing the fidelity of MTSS implementation and the complexities of RTI.Yet, I think with more research on the topic you can add more ideas to the article

2. What are the strengths of the content added?


 * It talks about the problems schools face when using MTSS, like not having enough staff or resources.
 * Explains how different schools have different MTSS plans and why it's important to find a balance between sticking to the plan and making changes.
 * Describes the levels of help students get in the RTI process and how it changes based on how they're doing.
 * Explains why schools check how students are doing regularly and how they use that information to help them.
 * Talks about how schools keep track of students' progress in RTI and how they decide what kind of help they need.

3. How can the content added be improved?


 * Use real-life stories to show challenges schools face with MTSS and how they solve them.
 * Give step-by-step tips for schools to overcome MTSS barriers.
 * Explain how RTI fits with special education rules and helps identify students who need extra support.
 * Talk about RTI's downsides and ways to fix them.
 * Use bold words in the text to make the text easier to follow as it was hard to navigate which section was the added content as part of it was bold and the other was not.
 * Overall I think this article needs some improvement, in terms of more current resources and more real life examples to showcase the different interventions used to support students at various levels of academic needs.