Each of these approaches is described below.
The step-by-step approach to early identification and intervention recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Education in Education for All (2005) and Learning for All(2013) as a method of teaching and early identification of struggling students. The ministry describes it more specifically as a systematic approach that provides high-quality, evidence-based teaching and assessment tasks and appropriate interventions focused on the unique needs of students. He has developed a three-step process model which is illustrated in Figure 1. Often referred to as Response to Intervention (RAI) outside of Ontario, this model illustrates a process by which an effective approach to differentiation, based on research, is used to teach all students, but in the event that students do not respond to this teaching, or if they need additional help,
The second staged approach is used in the design of lessons and assessments. Students are separated into small groups and given learning and assessment tasks that cover the same general subject matter, but at varying levels of difficulty. The choice of difficulty levels for classroom learning tasks and associated assessments can be made by the student or the teacher.
The Staged Intervention Approach (or RAI model)
The usual method used to identify a student with LDs gives the impression that the student is expected to fail, in the sense that they are referred to further instruction or educational support only after they have failed in their learning. This method has several flaws, including the relatively late identification of students with special needs, imprecise screening by observation of the class teacher, false negative results, that is to say students whose problems who have not been identified and who do not get the services they need or who receive them too late, and the use of identification measures that are not linked to education (Vaughn and Fuchs, 2003). The staged intervention approach focuses the assessment on the risk rather than the student’s deficit, so that the intervention is proactive rather than reactive.
The Stage 1 intervention approach is the most common. It is the response to intervention (RAI), which advocates a general teaching practice based on effective teaching methods derived from research that promote the success of all students. If students fail to learn a particular concept, or have difficulty in this learning, they can be taken to the second stage to give them intensive instruction in a small group. Depending on whether or not the intervention leads to the understanding of the concept, the students will be able to reintegrate the general learning context of the first stage or will be the subject of an intervention of the third stage. This last stage normally consists of individual teaching,
The step-by-step approach put forward by the Ontario government is mainly composed of methods that would be considered interventions. The scientific studies cited focus on interventions and, as Mattatall (2008) points out, compared to those in most provinces, the Ontario papers reflect more of the language and approach of the Intervention Response Model. Ontario also seems to be leading the way for the rest of Canada by putting forward a step-by-step approach to teaching and intervention
Studies Supporting the Staged Intervention Approach
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson and Hickman (2003) demonstrated that using such an approach in teaching could help improve student word processing (ability to decode words), fluency (ability to read words quickly and correctly) and comprehension (ability to understand what is read). They also found that the majority of students succeeded in meeting expectations following a second-stage intervention.
In a study from the same year, Vaughn et al. (2003c) examined the impact of teacher-student ratio on learning for students with reading difficulties. They found that a lower ratio was associated with higher scores on common indicators of reading achievement. However, the difference between a ratio of 1:3 and a ratio of 1:1 was not significant. These results strongly suggest that a reduction in the size of the group increases the student’s ability to learn, especially if the latter presents a risk of reading difficulty.
A similar study was conducted by O’Connor (2000) with kindergarten students at risk of having reading difficulties. According to O’Connor, initiating an intensive stepwise intervention approach in kindergarten could trigger reading skills in children who have not been sufficiently exposed to reading and help identify those who may have a deficiency. more real reading. Essentially, O’Connor sought to reduce the number of students diagnosed with reading difficulties when impairment in this area is attributable to environmental factors rather than a developmental disability. Although intensive intervention did not result in a decrease in the proportion of students who were subsequently identified as having special needs, there has been a decline in reading failure rates. Interestingly, this result contradicts the findings of a Canadian study
Whether or not such an approach decreases the number of cases of AT, these studies indicate that an intervention of increasing intensity according to the needs of the students creates a positive learning climate in which the students can continue to learn by regular class. Although the above studies focus primarily on interventions to improve reading fluency and comprehension, the stepwise approach can be used in many classrooms to teach concepts and skills of all kinds with which students have difficulty. Several studies (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Prentice, 2004; Fuchs et al., 2005) have demonstrated that the RAI model and, by extension, the stepwise intervention approach, are useful in teaching number sense. ,
What use could we make of it?
The studies discussed above were combined to create a step-by-step model that could be implemented in schools within a school board. Although the language varies between researchers and studies, the stepwise approach (MOE, 2005; MEO, 2013), progress monitoring (Hutchinson, 2013) and the RAI model (Vaughn and Fuchs, 2003) are based on similar teaching strategies. The step-by-step model illustrated below draws heavily on the method briefly described in Education for All (2005) and further developed in Learning for All (2013). A general model of this approach is shown in Figure 1.