We are looking at the comparison of student achievement increases based on these two interventions (Co-Teaching or MTSS/RTII). Which intervention results in the highest student achievement or highest effect size?
Response:
Thank you for the question you submitted to our REL Reference Desk regarding the
student achievement results of interventions. We have prepared the following memo with
research references to help answer your question. The resources identified do not directly address
the question of which intervention results in higher achievement, but they do examine the
achievement outcomes of students that participate in one of the interventions. For each reference,
we provide an abstract, excerpt, or summary written by the study’s author or publisher. The
references are selected from the most commonly used research resources and may not be
comprehensive. Other relevant studies may exist. References are listed in alphabetical order, not
necessarily in order of relevance. We have not evaluated the quality of these references, but
provide them for your information only.
Research References
Al Otaiba, S., Kim, Y., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., & Wagner, R.K. (2014). Long-term effects
of first-grade multitier intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3),
250-267. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1032923 From the abstract: “The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term effects of 2
first-grade Response to Intervention (RTI) models (Dynamic and Typical RTI) on the reading
performance of students in second and third grade. Participants included 419 first-grade
students (352 in second grade and 278 in third grade after attrition). Students were classified
based on first-grade screeners as at risk or not at risk and then based on their RTI (no risk
[NR], relative easy to remediate [ER], and requiring sustained remediation [SR]). Students in
the dynamic RTI condition had higher reading comprehension scores at the end of third
grade. At the end of second grade, ER and SR students had lower reading scores than NR
students. At the end of third grade, there were no differences in reading skills between ER
and NR students, but SR students had lower scores than NR students. ER students in the
dynamic RTI condition had higher reading scores at the end of second grade than those in the
typical RTI condition. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.”
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of
Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading. NCEE 2016-4000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560820 From the abstract: “Response to Intervention (RtI) is a framework for collecting and using
data to match students to interventions of varying intensity. This study examines the
implementation of RtI in Grade 1-3 reading in 13 states during the 2011-12 school year,
focusing on 146 schools that were experienced with RtI. Full implementation of the RtI
framework in Grade 1-3 reading was reported by 86 percent of the experienced schools.
Fifty-five percent of these schools focused reading intervention services on Grade 1 students
reading below grade level, while 45 percent of the schools also provided reading intervention
services for Grade 1 students reading at or above grade level. Students who scored just below
school-determined benchmarks on fall screening tests, and who were assigned to
interventions for struggling readers, had lower spring reading scores in Grade 1 than students
just above the threshold for intervention. In Grades 2 and 3, there were no statistically
significant impacts of interventions for struggling readers on the spring reading scores of
students just below the threshold for intervention.”
Clarke, B., Doabler, C.T., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S.K., Fien, H., Cary, M.S. (2016).
Examining the efficacy of a tier 2 kindergarten mathematics intervention. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 152-165. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED578174 From the abstract: “This study examined the efficacy of a Tier 2 kindergarten mathematics
intervention program, ROOTS, focused on developing whole number understanding for
students at risk in mathematics. A total of 29 classrooms were randomly assigned to
treatment (ROOTS) or control (standard district practices) conditions. Measures of
mathematics achievement were collected at pretest and posttest. Treatment and control
students did not differ on mathematics assessments at pretest. Gain scores of at-risk
intervention students were significantly greater than those of control peers, and the gains of
at-risk treatment students were greater than the gains of peers not at risk, effectively reducing
the achievement gap. Implications for Tier 2 mathematics instruction in a response to
intervention (RtI) model are discussed.”
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach, D.B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, R. (2016).
Relationship between school-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and
academic, attendance, and behavior outcomes in high schools. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 8(1), 41-51 Jan 2016 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1084005 From the abstract: “Attendance, behavior, and academic outcomes are important indicators
of school effectiveness and long-term student outcomes. Multi-tiered systems of support
(MTSS), such as School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), have emerged as potentially effective frameworks for addressing student needs and
improving student outcomes. Much of the research on SWPBIS outcomes has taken place at
the elementary and middle school levels, leaving a need for a more thorough examination of
outcomes at the high school level. The purpose of this study was to explore the links between
implementation of SWPBIS and academic, attendance, and behavior outcome measures
across a large sample of high schools from 37 states. Despite some of the difficulties of
SWPBIS implementation at the high school level, evidence suggests positive relationships
between SWPBIS implementation and outcomes in behavior and attendance for high schools
that implement with fidelity.”
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B.
(2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for
elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504995 From the abstract: “Students struggling with mathematics may benefit from early
interventions aimed at improving their mathematics ability and ultimately preventing
subsequent failure. This guide provides eight specific recommendations intended to help
teachers, principals, and school administrators use Response to Intervention (RtI) to identify
students who need assistance in mathematics and to address the needs of these students
through focused interventions. The guide provides suggestions on how to carry out each
recommendation and explains how educators can overcome potential roadblocks to
implementing the recommendations. Each recommendation is rated strong, moderate, or low
based on the strength of the research evidence for the respective recommendation. Specific
recommendations include: (1) Screen all students to identify those at risk for potential
mathematics difficulties and provide interventions to students identified as at risk; (2)
Committee-selected instructional materials for students receiving interventions should focus
intensely on in-depth treatment of whole numbers in kindergarten through grade 5 and on
rational numbers in grades 4 through 8; (3) Instruction during intervention should be explicit
and systematic, and should include models of proficient problem solving, verbalization of
thought processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review; (4)
Interventions should include instruction on solving word problems that is based on common
underlying structures; (5) Intervention materials should include opportunities for students to
work with visual representations of mathematical ideas and interventionists should be
proficient in the use of visual representations of mathematical ideas; (6) Interventions at all
grade levels should devote about 10 minutes in each session to building fluent retrieval of
basic arithmetic facts; (7) Monitor the progress of students receiving supplemental
instruction and other students who are at risk; and (8) Include motivational strategies in tier 2
and tier 3 interventions.”
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and
Tilly, W.D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and
multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-
4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504264 From the abstract: “Response to Intervention (RtI) is a comprehensive early detection and
prevention strategy that identifies struggling students and assists them before they fall
behind. RtI systems combine universal screening and high-quality instruction for all students
with interventions targeted at struggling students. This guide offers five specific
recommendations to help educators identify struggling readers and implement evidence-based
strategies to promote their reading achievement. Teachers and reading specialists can
utilize these strategies to implement RtI and multi-tier intervention methods and frameworks
at the classroom or school level. Recommendations cover how to screen students for reading
problems, design a multi-tier intervention program, adjust instruction to help struggling
readers, and monitor student progress. Note that this guide focuses on screening and
interventions for struggling readers; it does not provide recommendations for general
classroom reading instruction.”
Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R., Haymond, K.S., & Dimino, J. (2017). What is the
evidence base to support reading interventions for improving student outcomes in grades 1-
3? (REL 2017-271). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Southeast. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573686 From the abstract: “Response to intervention (RTI) is a comprehensive early detection and
prevention strategy used to identify and support struggling students before they fall behind.
An RTI model usually has three tiers or levels of support. Tier 1 is generally defined as
classroom instruction provided to all students, tier 2 is typically a preventive intervention
offered to students who fall behind when given only classroom instruction, and tier 3 is more
intensive intervention offered to students who failed to respond to the supports in tiers 1 and
2. This review provides updated information on the evidence supporting the use of reading
interventions for students who are at risk of reading difficulty in grades 1-3. … The purpose
of the review was to assess the current evidence base on the use of reading interventions for
improving student outcomes in grades 1-3. The review was limited to studies of tier 2
interventions, those designed to provide preventive services to students at risk of struggling
with typical classroom reading instruction. It did not include studies whose subject was
intensive (tier 3) intervention--that is, studies geared to students who require more than tier 2
support. The literature search and review identified 27 efficacy studies that the review team
determined met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards either with or without reservations (What Works Clearinghouse, 2014a). Of the 27 studies, 23 compared
the performance of students who received the intervention with the performance of students
who did not. …Key findings from the 23 efficacy studies of the 20 interventions include: (1)
All but 1 of the 20 interventions demonstrated positive or potentially positive effects in at
least one of the four areas of reading performance: word and pseudoword reading, passage
reading fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. Effects were strongest and most
consistent in word and pseudoword reading, though some interventions also had effects in
reading comprehension and passage reading fluency. No effects were found in vocabulary;
(2) All 11 of the individually administered interventions and 8 of 9 of the small-group
interventions resulted in positive or potentially positive effects; and (3) All 20 interventions
included high levels of ongoing support for the teachers, paraeducators, volunteers, and other
adults who worked with students. Though the reviewed studies showed that 19 of the 20
reading interventions were effective, most of the interventions included a component that is
atypical of current school practice: ongoing support for the interventionist (the teacher,
paraeducator, or member of the research staff responsible for delivering the intervention). In
addition, the majority of interventions involved individual (one-on-one) interventions, as
opposed to typical school implementations, which involve small groups of three to five
students. When considering how to use these findings, it is important to consider that these
studies do not reflect typical school practice, where weekly or biweekly monitoring of
fidelity of implementation and onsite coaching are rarely available.”
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy
indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ854562 From the abstract: “Co-teaching has been developed as an instructional approach to support
students with disabilities in general education classrooms. The purpose of this study was to
identify teachers' and students' perspectives of co-teaching and the efficacy of this teaching
approach. Forty-five co-teachers and 58 students with disabilities (N = 103), all of whom
were new to co-taught classrooms during the 2004 through 2005 school year, participated in
this study. Data were collected from surveys, observations, and records review. Significant
differences in student academic and behavioral performances were found in comparisons
between the year before co-teaching and the year of co-teaching. Students with disabilities
and their teachers also reported positive perspectives about co-teaching. Based on these
preliminary results, co-teaching appears to be an effective instructional delivery option for
meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.”
Powell, S.R., Fuchs, L.S., Cirino, P.T., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., & Changas, P.C. (2015).
Effects of a multi-tier support system on calculation, word problem, and prealgebraic
performance among at-risk learners. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 443-470. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1065063 From the abstract: “The focus of the present study was enhancing word problem and
calculation achievement in ways that support prealgebraic thinking among second-grade
students at risk for mathematics difficulty. Intervention relied on a multitier support system
(i.e., responsiveness to intervention, or RTI) in which at-risk students participate in general
classroom instruction and receive supplementary small-group tutoring. Participants were 265
students in 110 classrooms in 25 schools. Teachers were randomly assigned to one of three
conditions: calculation RTI, word problem RTI, or business-as-usual control. Intervention
lasted 17 weeks. Multilevel modeling indicated that calculation RTI improved calculation but
not word problem outcomes, word problem RTI enhanced proximal word problem outcomes
as well as performance on some calculation outcomes, and word problem RTI provided a
stronger route than calculation RTI to prealgebraic knowledge.”
Tremblay, P. (2013). Comparative outcomes of two instructional models for students with
learning disabilities: Inclusion with co-teaching and solo-taught special education. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(4), 251-258. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1029264 From the abstract: “We compared two instructional models (co-teaching inclusion and solotaught
special education) for students with learning disabilities (LD) with regard to their
effect on academic achievement and class attendance. Twelve inclusive classes (experimental
group) and 13 special education classes (control group) participated in the study. In grade 1,
there were eight inclusive classes and nine special education classes with a total of 353
students (195 without disabilities, 58 with LD in inclusion and 100 with LD in special
education classes). The data were collected from academic tests. Although our results
revealed no significant difference between the two models in terms of target population,
objectives and assigned resources, significant differences were observed in the effects on
student outcomes in reading/writing and on attendance, as the inclusion model was shown to
be globally more effective compared with the special education setting.”
Westenskow, A., Moyer-Packenham, P.S., & Child, B. (2017). An iceberg model for
improving mathematical understanding and mindset or disposition: An individualized
summer intervention program. Journal of Education, 197(1), 1-9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1137066 From the abstract: “This study describes 3 years of mathematics intervention research
examining the effectiveness of a summer individualized tutoring program for rising fourth-,
fifth-, and sixth-grade students with low mathematics achievement. Based on an iceberg
model of learning, an instructional framework was developed that identified and targeted
students' specific mathematical needs, developed number sense flexibility, and encouraged
positive mindset or disposition. Students participated in eight one-on-one tutoring
intervention sessions. Pre- and posttest results indicated that students made moderate to large effect size gains in each targeted area of instruction. Additionally, the intervention proved to
produce positive results across three different contexts for delivering tutoring instruction.”
Additional Organizations to Consult
Kansas MTSS: https://www.ksdetasn.org/mtss From the website: “Kansas Technical Assistance System Network (TASN) provides
technical assistance to support school districts' systematic implementation of evidence-based
practices.”
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE): http://www.nasdse.org/ From the website: “Since 1938, NASDSE has provided leadership to ensure the provision
of a quality education to every child. NASDSE focuses on improving educational
services and outcomes for children and youth with disabilities throughout the United
States, the Department of Defense, the federal territories and the Freely Associated States
of Palau, American Samoa, Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands and the Marshall Islands. As NASDSE enters its 80th year, we continue our work
with state education agencies (SEAs) to make certain that every student with a disability
receives the educational supports and services needed from birth to be prepared for postschool
education, employment and independent living choices.”
National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET): https://www.naset.org/ From the website: “The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) is
a national membership organization dedicated to rendering all possible support and
assistance to those preparing for or teaching in the field of special education. NASET was
founded to promote the profession of special education teachers and to provide a national
forum for their ideas.”
RTI Action Network: http://www.rtinetwork.org/ From the website: “The RTI Action Network is dedicated to the effective implementation
of Response to Intervention (RTI) in school districts nationwide. Our goal is to guide
educators and families in the large-scale implementation of RTI so that each child has
access to quality instruction and that struggling students – including those with learning
and attention issues – are identified early and receive the necessary supports to be
successful. The RTI Action Network is a program of the National Center for Learning
Disabilities, funded by the Cisco Foundation and in partnership with the nation’s leading
education associations and top RTI experts.”
National Center on Intensive Intervention at AIR: https://intensiveintervention.org/ From the website: “NCII builds the capacity of state and local education agencies,
universities, practitioners, and other stakeholders to support implementation of intensive
intervention in literacy, mathematics, and behavior for students with severe and persistent
learning and/or behavioral needs, often in the context of their multi-tiered system of
supports (MTSS) or special education services. NCII’s approach to intensive intervention is data-based individualization (DBI), a research-based process that integrates the
systemic use of assessment data, validated interventions, and intensification strategies.”
Method:
Search Strings. MTSS RTI co-teaching achievement OR MTSS RTI co-teaching effect size OR
MTSS RTI co-teaching student outcomes OR co-teaching intervention academic achievement
OR MTSS academic achievement OR RTI academic achievement
Searched Databases and Resources.
ERIC
Academic Databases (e.g., EBSCO databases, JSTOR database, ProQuest, Google Scholar)
Commercial search engines (e.g., Google)
Institute of Education Sciences Resources
Reference Search and Selection Criteria. The following factors are considered when selecting references:
Date of Publication: Priority is given to references published in the past 10 years.
Search Priorities of Reference Sources: ERIC, other academic databases, Institute of Education Sciences Resources, and other resources including general internet searches
Methodology: Priority is given to the most rigorous study types, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, as well as to surveys, descriptive analyses, and literature reviews. Other considerations include the target population and sample, including their relevance to the question, generalizability, and general quality.
REL Mid-Atlantic serves the education needs of Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
This Ask A REL was prepared under Contract ED-IES-17-C-0006 by Regional Educational
Laboratory Mid-Atlantic administered by Mathematica Policy Research. The content does not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does
mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government.