Response-to-intervention approach

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The development of the American response-to-intervention approach (RTI) is located in the 1960s or 1980s, depending on the author. Since then he has become steadily more important in the US and is now in more than half of all states, the framework for inclusion and prevention of learning disabilities and behavioral disorders is. Since the beginning of the inclusion discourse of the RTI approach but increasingly discussed in the German-speaking countries and in the form the Rügen inclusion model has also been empirically tested since the 2010/2011 school year. The US approach is an inclusive concept of data-based and tiered prevention and promotion of special educational needs as well as an alternative determination of learning and developmental impairments. The aim is to adapt the lesson structure to the children's abilities so that every student can benefit as much as possible. Through the support of all students, learning and behavior problems should be recognized at an early stage and ideally prevented. The response of the children to the respective measure (intervention) is measured on the basis of school performance development. However, the approach only provides the framework guidelines with prescribed core elements that are filled in in the form of a variety of models. The core elements consist of differently intensive and specific funding levels (multi-level prevention), which are based on data-driven funding decisions based on regular screenings and learning progress documentation ( learning progress diagnostics , progress monitoring) and in the form of evidence-based teaching methods and programs (evidence-based practice) as well as systematic multi-professional cooperation for so long be optimized until learning progress can be observed again.

Labeling approach

The response-to-intervention approach is closely related to the labeling approach (English: labeling theory), which defines categorization as taking place dynamically in the interaction. A category like (learning) disability should therefore not be viewed as static, but rather as the result of a dynamic negotiation process of social interaction. Accordingly, not only an individual disposition is needed for categorization, but above all the mechanisms of social labeling. RTI offers solutions to the problems that arise as a result. With regard to the disability category, the purpose of this is to “provide support to disadvantaged people”. In addition to the positive effect of resource procurement, labeling also has negative consequences. It consolidates self-fulfilling prophecies and influences the perception of others, which is reflected in the categorized person and exerts role pressure on them and thus affects their self-image, so that certain deviating characteristics sometimes only arise through the categorization. This negative cycle is particularly important in connection with stigmatization. Categories are often associated with stigmatization and lead not only to classification, but also to demarcation and, in the last step, to exclusion, which has serious consequences for self-perception and self-esteem. Labeling by public institutions, such as the school does in the form of special needs, leads to particularly strong role pressure and discriminatory stigmatization up to and including segregation in the event of a change to a special school. At the same time, categories only provide a rough guide for individual educational support. For these reasons, advocates of inclusion call for a decategorization of the various funding needs. However, these attempts are currently failing due to the funding resources tied to them. The corresponding labeling-resource-dilemma states that only children labeled as in need of support also receive the corresponding special educational resources. The necessary support can only be offered through additional resources, but the categorization required for this leads to stigmatization and disadvantage at the same time. In addition, there is a wait-to-fail problem in many school systems. This means that special educational resources are only released when the problems get so out of hand that they exceed the capacity of the subject teacher and can be clearly diagnosed and classified.

The Response-to-Intervention Approach (USA)

development

Between the 1960s and 1980s, the development of the response-to-intervention approach (RTI) began in the USA, which promises prevention and early intervention with regard to minor learning deficits. Since then it has experienced considerable dissemination in the scientific discourse in the USA and in practice there. RTI was enshrined in law in the USA in 2001 under the No Child Left Behind Act and in 2004 under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition to the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are now also using RTI as a guiding framework for inclusive schooling.

The approach

The response-to-intervention approach offers a pragmatic answer to the wait-to-fail problem described above by making data-driven funding decisions based on curriculum-based measurements (CBM), which are linked to multilevel prevention and funding using evidence-based methods become. Instead of segregating pupils with problematic learning, there is a gradual optimization and adjustment of support within the mainstream school. This is based on the continuous and differentiated observation of each student in the form of tests that reflect the reaction of the child to the corresponding teaching measure (intervention). The three cornerstones of the approach - continuous diagnostics, prevention and three-stage funding - are presented in more detail below.

Diagnosis

The constant diagnosis includes two to three screening procedures within a school year, which are carried out as part of support level 1 with all children in order to identify possible development risks at an early stage. In the case of the students who are conspicuous here, performance and difficulties are differentiated and qualitatively determined within the framework of support level 2. In addition, the school development of all pupils at support level 1 is tracked with the help of monthly curriculum-based measurements as part of progress monitoring. At support levels 2 and 3, these are expanded to include weekly measurements as part of learning progress documentation, which are intended to provide information about the effectiveness of the teaching and support methods. Curriculum-based measurements are tests in which students are supposed to solve as many tasks as possible in a competence area within a given time.

Prevention

In the RTI approach, in contrast to the wait-to-fail principle, funding starts as early as possible. In addition to the individual and effective optimization of special educational support, early diagnostics and good prevention should ensure that special educational support needs do not arise in the first place.

Tiered funding

The tiered support, which should enable effective special educational intervention, normally consists of 3 levels, which differ in terms of the intensity and specificity of the measures, the degree of individualization and the associated diagnostic methods. The intensity increases in frequency, duration, smaller group sizes and the qualifications of the staff from funding level to funding level.

All three support levels take place in the regular school, support level 1 in class, 2 in small groups and 3 in individual sessions. The division is flexible and time-limited, which means that there is no need for labeling when granting funding. Instead of a rigid allocation, a student receives a needs-based and flexible support, as long as he needs it and the support proves to be effective. When changing between the levels, a distinction is made between two approaches: the standard protocol and the problem-solving approach. With the standard protocol, previously defined diagnostic criteria lead to specific, also previously defined support measures for all children with similar needs. In the problem-solving approach, on the other hand, a conference of teachers, school management, parents and external experts makes the decision about a change of level based on previously determined performance and development data and develops an individual support plan. With both variants, the teacher contributes through their pedagogical action and their way of communicating with the class to ensure that temporary support at the two higher levels does not lead to stigmatization.

effectiveness

In America, the effectiveness of the individual components as well as the response-to-intervention approach as a whole has been empirically proven in the form of various variants. Above all, the cornerstones of the RTI, prevention, CBM and evidence-based, standardized problem-solving models, have proven to be particularly effective.

The Rügen Inclusion Model (Germany)

development

After the Bundestag ratified the UN Disability Rights Convention in 2009 and initiated an inclusion movement in the form of school regulations at the federal state level, in 2012 over 80% of disabled children were still taught in special or special schools. One possible answer to the slow development, as well as to some of the problems associated with inclusion, was found in the response-to-intervention approach successfully implemented in the USA. The Institute for Special Educational Development Promotion and Rehabilitation of the University of Rostock developed a German concept of prevention and integration for the special needs learning, emotional-social development and language in primary school. Since the 2010/2011 school year, the so-called Rügen Inclusion Model (RIM) has for the first time implemented the RTI's American inclusive schooling concept on a large scale. Since then, it has been tested and further developed on the island of Rügen in cooperation with the local elementary and special needs schools, the Greifswald State Education Authority and the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Ministry of Education under the name "Preventive and Integrative School on Rügen (PISaR)". As with the RTI, the basis is the combination of the core elements of multi-level prevention and evidence-based and data-driven practice. In addition to the strongly developed wait-to-fail structures in Germany, particular challenges in the implementation in Germany were the highly differentiated funding structures, which allowed only a few points of contact for systematic cooperation between mainstream and special education. Furthermore, only a few methods of evidence-based learning progress diagnostics and corresponding learning and support concepts were available in German-speaking countries.

The model

The Rügen inclusion model is very similar to the RTI framework in terms of constant diagnostics and three-stage funding. The exact design of the model is presented in more detail below with regard to the two main areas of diagnostics and funding.

Diagnosis

Central to the model and its early intervention and prevention is the diagnosis, which is based on data from screenings and curriculum-based measurements, in which the weakest 25% of the students of an age group are supported on support level 2 and the weakest 10% on support level 3. In addition, qualitative diagnostics to understand the child's abilities and working methods as well as regular class observation and work samples take place. On this basis, all the educators involved and, if necessary, the school management, external experts and the parents concerned agree on content-related and organizational decisions on funding in regular case consultations. The RIM thus corresponds to a hybrid model of the standard protocol and the problem-solving approach.

advancement

The Rügen Inclusion Model differentiates between the funding areas German, mathematics, behavior and language. As with the RTI, each area is supported on 3 funding levels. The first level in the area of ​​mathematics is characterized, for example, by “high-quality mathematics lessons with a high degree of individualization”. If the screening procedures, learning progress diagnoses or class observations indicate the first difficulties in one of the support areas, the child in question will receive additional support at support level 2 at times. The class teacher is still responsible for support on the second level. It takes place in parallel and in addition to regular lessons, partly in the class, partly in small groups outside the classroom. If the responses to the interventions taking place here are not positive, funding follows on level 3 the class teacher, but a special educator in small groups or individual sessions. With regard to the mathematics funding area, these support measures can include additional attention training, for example.

Pupils who do not achieve the general performance standards of the primary school despite the support at all three levels of support are trained at the RIM according to the target. In some cases, a grade can also be repeated if the promotion of the repetition year is geared towards learning basic skills for successful further learning.

effectiveness

In the first three-year comparison period of the Rügen inclusion model, the positive effects of the American RTI could not yet be replicated, "nevertheless the results indicate a fundamentally successful inclusive school structure". At the end of the third year of the project, both the students on Rügen and the control group from Stralsund showed average values ​​regarding school performance and their emotional-social development. In the support areas of mathematics and reading, the children in Stralsund achieved significantly better results with small effect sizes, while the children in Rügen achieved significantly better emotional-social development in the form of problem-solving and prosocial behavior, but with small to negligible effect sizes. The class climate and social integration were also rated significantly better on Rügen. An interim study after two years of project duration also showed that the exclusion rate on Rügen at 1.8% was significantly lower than that in Stralsund of 11.2%. This quota includes the children who started school in 2010 who had to repeat the second grade at the end of the year or were retrained in a diagnostic remedial class, a primary language school class or a remedial class for emotional and social development. The participating researchers rate the results as “as expected” for a pilot project. They justify the differences between theoretical specifications and practical implementation in the not yet exhausted potential of the concepts, materials and measurement methods used and therefore rely on increased further training for the teachers involved in the future. Overall, however, they rate the practical RIM project as successful, because “[t] rotz of increased educational requirements through the schooling of a student body with a higher proportion of children with special needs and who largely do without grade repetitions, the primary schools on Rügen work so well that in Average acceptable school performance [...] are achieved “You come to the conclusion that the response-to-intervention approach can also offer an alternative to the design of inclusive educational structures in Germany.

literature

  • S. Berkeley, WN Bender, LG Peaster and L. Saunders: Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. In: Journal of Learning Disabilities . tape 42 , no. 1 , 2009, p. 85-95 .
  • U. Bleidick: Disability as an educational task: the concept of disability and the theory of disability education . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1999.
  • Y. Blumenthal, K. Kuhlmann and B. Hartke: Diagnosis and prevention of learning difficulties in the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) and Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In: Tests & Trends. New volume 12: Formative performance diagnostics. 2014, p. 61-81 .
  • SL Deno: Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. In: Exceptional Children . tape 52 , 1985, pp. 219-232 .
  • H. Eberwein: Integration pedagogy: children with and without disabilities learn together: a manual. 5th edition. Beltz, Weinheim 1999.
  • D. Eggert: Starting from the strengths ...: Individual development plans in learning support diagnostics: a plea for different thinking habits and a changed practice. 3. Edition. Borgmann, Dortmund 1998.
  • H.-P. Füssel and R. Kretschmann: Joint lessons for disabled and non-disabled children: educational and legal requirements. Witterschlick, Bonn 1993.
  • LS Fuchs and D. Fuchs: Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. In: Exceptional Children . tape 53 , 1986, pp. 19-208 .
  • D. Fuchs, D. Mock, PL Morgan, and CL Young: Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. In: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice . tape 18 , no. 3 , 2003, p. 157-171 .
  • B. Haas: Deconstruction and Decategorization: Perspectives of a non-categorical (special) education. In: Journal for curative education . tape 63 , no. 10 , 2012, p. 404-413 .
  • C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education . tape 63 , no. 8 , 2012, p. 312-322 .
  • K. Mahlau, K. Diehl, S. Voss and B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusive Model (RIM) - conception of an inclusive elementary school. In: Journal for curative education . tape 11 , 2011, p. 464-472 .
  • D. Reshley and MK Bergstrom: Response to intervention. In: The handbook of school psychology. 2009, p. 434-460 .
  • EM Schur: Deviant behavior and social control: labeling and social reactions. Herder & Herder, Frankfurt, New York, NY 1974.
  • S. Vaughn, LS Fuchs: Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. In: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice . tape 18 , no. 3 , 2003, p. 137-146 .
  • M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Bonn 2017.
  • S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Waxmann, Munster, New York, NY 2016.
  • S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the Response to Intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education . tape 2 , 2014, p. 114-132 .
  • H. Wocken: Special educational needs as a systematic term. In: Special Education . tape 26 , no. 1 , 1996, p. 34-38 .
  • H. Wocken: Save the special schools? - Save human rights! An appeal for a differentiated discourse on decategorization. In: Journal for Inclusion . tape 4 , 2012.
  • K. Ziemen: The Relationship between Inclusive Education and Disability Studies - Challenges and Perspectives. In: Inclusion Lexicon . 2014.

 

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c S. Berkeley, WN Bender, LG Peaster and L. Saunders: Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. In: Journal of Learning Disabilities. Volume 42, No. 1, 2009, pp. 85-95.
  2. ↑ SL Deno: Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. In: Exceptional Children. Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 219-232.
    LS Fuchs and D. Fuchs: Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. In: Exceptional Children. No. 53, 1986, pp. 19-208.
  3. ^ Y. Blumenthal, K. Kuhlmann and B. Hartke: Diagnostics and prevention of learning difficulties in the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) and Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In: Tests & Trends. New volume 12: Formative performance diagnostics. Eds. M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider and U. Trautwein. Göttingen: Hofgrefe, 2009, pp. 61–81.
  4. ^ Y. Blumenthal, K. Kuhlmann and B. Hartke: Diagnostics and prevention of learning difficulties in the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) and Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In: Tests & Trends. New volume 12: Formative performance diagnostics. Eds. M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider and U. Trautwein. Göttingen: Hofgrefe, 2009, pp. 61–81.
    C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 8, 2012, pp. 312-322.
  5. ↑ a b c S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 15.
  6. ^ Y. Blumenthal, K. Kuhlmann and B. Hartke: Diagnostics and prevention of learning difficulties in the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) and Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In: Tests & Trends. New volume 12: Formative performance diagnostics. Eds. M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider and U. Trautwein. Göttingen: Hofgrefe, 2009, pp. 61–81.
    Reshley, D. and MK Bergstrom: Response to intervention. In: The handbook of school psychology. 4th ed. Eds. TB Gutkin and CR Reynolds. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley, 2009, pp. 434-460.
  7. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 18.
  8. ↑ C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 8, 2012, pp. 313f.
  9. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 18.
  10. ^ S. Berkeley, WN Bender, LG Peaster and L. Saunders: Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. In: Journal of Learning Disabilities. Volume 42, No. 1, 2009, pp. 85-95.
    Essential Components of RTI - A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI), 2010. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  11. ^ Y. Blumenthal, K. Kuhlmann and B. Hartke: Diagnostics and prevention of learning difficulties in the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) and Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In: Tests & Trends. New volume 12: Formative performance diagnostics. Eds. M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider and U. Trautwein. Göttingen: Hofgrefe, 2009, p. 71.
    C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 8, 2012, p. 314.
    S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention-Approach in in practice: Evaluation results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 18.
  12. ↑ EM Schur: Deviant behavior and social control: labeling and social reactions. Frankfurt, New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1974, p. 16.
  13. ↑ EM Schur: Deviant behavior and social control: labeling and social reactions. Frankfurt, New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1974, p. 42.
  14. ↑ U. Bleidick: Disability as an educational task: the concept of disability and the theory of disability education. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009, p. 19.
  15. ↑ U. Bleidick: Disability as an educational task: the concept of disability and the theory of disability education. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009, p. 32.
    EM Schur: Deviant behavior and social control: labeling and social reactions. Frankfurt, New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1974, p. 67f.
  16. ↑ H. Wocken: Save the special schools? - Save human rights! An appeal for a differentiated discourse on decategorization. In: Journal for Inclusion. No. 4, 2012, p. 4f.
  17. ↑ U. Bleidick: Disability as an educational task: the concept of disability and the theory of disability education. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009, p. 40, 42.
    EM Schur: Deviant behavior and social control: labeling and social reactions. Frankfurt, New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1974, p. 68.
  18. ↑ H. Wocken: Save the special schools? - Save human rights! An appeal for a differentiated discourse on decategorization. In: Journal for Inclusion. No. 4, 2012, p. 3.
  19. ↑ H. Wocken: Save the special schools? - Save human rights! An appeal for a differentiated discourse on decategorization. In: Journal for Inclusion. No. 4, 2012, p. 2.
  20. ↑ K. Ziemen: The ratio of Inclusive Education and Disability Studies - challenges and perspectives. In: Inclusion Lexicon. No. 1–9, 2014, p. 4.
    B. Haas: Deconstruction and Decategorization: Perspectives of a non-categorical (special) education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 10, 2012, pp. 407f.
  21. ↑ U. Bleidick: Disability as an educational task: the concept of disability and the theory of disability education. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009, p. 79.
    LS Fuchs and D. Fuchs: Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. In: Exceptional Children. No. 53, 1986, p. 43.
  22. ↑ C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 8, 2012, p. 312.
    H. Eberwein: Integration Pedagogy: Children with and without disabilities learn together: A manual. 5. Aufl. Weinheim: Beltz, 1999.
    D. Eggert: From the strengths proceeding ...: Individual development plans in learning support diagnostics: a plea for different thinking habits and a changed practice. 3rd ed. Dortmund: Borgmann, 1998.
    S. Vaughn and LS Fuchs: Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. In: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 18 No. 3, 2003, pp. 137-146.
    H. Wocken: Special educational needs as a systematic term. In: Special Education. Volume 26, No. 1, 1996, pp. 34-38.
  23. ↑ C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 8, 2012, p. 313.
  24. ↑ SL Deno: Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. In: Exceptional Children. Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 219-232.
    LS Fuchs and D. Fuchs: Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. In: Exceptional Children. No. 53, 1986, pp. 19-208.
  25. ^ S. Berkeley, WN Bender, LG Peaster and L. Saunders: Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. In: Journal of Learning Disabilities. Volume 42, No. 1, 2009, pp. 85-95.
    B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusion Model: System transformation in 3 years - can that work? 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2018, p. 6.
  26. ↑ B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusion Model: System transformation in 3 years - can that succeed? 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2018, p. 6.
  27. ↑ B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusion Model: System transformation in 3 years - can that succeed? 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2018, p. 6.
  28. ↑ B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusion Model: System transformation in 3 years - can that succeed? 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2018, p. 20.
  29. ↑ K. Mahlau, K. Diehl, S. Voss and B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusive Model (RIM) - conception of an inclusive elementary school. In: Journal for curative education. No. 11, 2011, p. 465.
  30. ^ M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2017, p. 99.
  31. ↑ K. Mahlau, K. Diehl, S. Voss and B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusive Model (RIM) - conception of an inclusive elementary school. In: Journal for curative education. No. 11, 2011, p. 466.S.
    Voß, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The response-to-intervention approach in practice: Evaluation results for the Rügen inclusion model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 20
  32. ↑ a b c K. Mahlau, K. Diehl, S. Voss and B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusive Model (RIM) - conception of an inclusive elementary school. In: Journal for curative education. No. 11, 2011, p. 466.
  33. ↑ K. Mahlau, K. Diehl, S. Voss and B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusive Model (RIM) - conception of an inclusive elementary school. In: Journal for curative education. No. 11, 2011, p. 466.S.
    Voß, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The response-to-intervention approach in practice: Evaluation results for the Rügen inclusion model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 20
  34. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 20.
  35. ↑ C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. 63, No. 8, 2012, pp. 312-322.
    M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2017, p. 99.
  36. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 19.
  37. ↑ LS Fuchs and D. Fuchs: Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. In: Exceptional Children. No. 53, 1986, pp. 19-208.
    S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the Response to Intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 116.
  38. ↑ a b M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2017, p. 100.
  39. ^ M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2017, p. 102
    S. Voß, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention-Approach in in practice: Evaluation results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 19.
  40. ↑ D. Fuchs, D. Mock, PL Morgan and CL Young: Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. In: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Volume 18, No. 3, 2003, pp. 157-171.
    S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the Response to Intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 117.
  41. ↑ D. Fuchs, D. Mock, PL Morgan and CL Young: Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. In: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Volume 18, No. 3, 2003, pp. 157-171.
    S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the Response to Intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 117.
  42. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 117.
  43. ^ M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2017, p. 101.
  44. ↑ C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. Volume 63, No. 8, 2012, pp. 312-322.
  45. ^ M. Vock and A. Gronostaj: Dealing with heterogeneity in school and teaching. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2017, p. 102f.
  46. ↑ C. Huber and M. Grosche: The response-to-intervention model as the basis for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. In: Journal for curative education. 63, No. 8, 2012, p. 316.
  47. ^ United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations, 2006. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  48. ↑ H. Wocken: Save the special schools? - Save human rights! An appeal for a differentiated discourse on decategorization. In: Journal for Inclusion. No. 4, 2012, p. 1.
  49. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 114.
  50. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 15f.
    Essential Components of RTI - A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI), 2010. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  51. ↑ B. Hartke: The Rügen Inclusion Model: System transformation in 3 years - can that succeed? 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2018, p. 5.
  52. ↑ a b S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the computing and reading performance of Elementary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 118.
  53. ↑ a b c d S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on arithmetic and Reading achievements of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, pp. 114–132.
  54. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 120.
    Y. Blumenthal, K. Kuhlmann and B. Hartke: Diagnostics and prevention of learning difficulties in the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) and Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In: Tests & Trends. New volume 12: Formative performance diagnostics. Eds. M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider and U. Trautwein. Göttingen: Hofgrefe, 2009, pp. 61–81.
  55. ↑ a b c d e S. Voß, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model . Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 29.
  56. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 118.
  57. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 119.S.
    Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The response-to-intervention approach in practice: Evaluation results for the Rügen inclusion model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 29.
  58. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 119.
  59. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the arithmetic and reading abilities of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 114.
  60. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 250.
  61. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 250.
  62. ↑ S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, K. Mahlau, K. Marten, K. Diehl, S. Sikora and B. Hartke: The Response-to-Intervention Approach in Practice: Evaluation Results for the Rügen Inclusion Model. Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann, 2016, p. 150.
  63. ↑ a b c d S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on arithmetic and Reading achievements of primary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 128.
  64. ↑ a b S. Voss, Y. Blumenthal, S. Sikora, K. Mahlau, K. Diehl and B. Hartke: Rügener Inclusion Model (RIM) - Effects of a schooling approach based on the response to intervention approach on the computing and reading performance of Elementary school children. In: Empirical Special Education. No. 2, 2014, p. 129.