Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Educational Technology and Response to Intervention: Affordances and Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Response to Intervention

Abstract

Technology involves application of research to solve practical problems, and it may include bodies of knowledge and processes as well as tools. Whether technology impacts learning, and if it does, how it may be best used are questions that have been debated for several decades. This chapter discusses the effect technology has had on schooling and argues that any attempt to improve student learning must stand on relevant, well-designed curricula and evidence-based instructional methods. With this in place, technologies can help support RTI efforts around learning, assessment, teaching, and productivity. The use of technology in instruction and intervention across tiers is discussed, including its affordances, limitations, and barriers, with research and recommendations for the use of technology in reading and mathematics specifically addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 269.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 349.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AL-Bataineh, A., & Brooks, L. (2003). Challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of instructional technology in the community college classroom. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 473–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiou-Ray, J., Wilson, E., Wright, V., & Peirano, A. M. (2003). Changing instructional practice: The impact of technology integration on students, parents, and school personnel. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education. http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No2/AlexRay.htm.

  • Allsopp, D. H., McHatton, P. A., & Farmer, J. L. (2010). Technology, mathematics PS/RTI, and students with LD: What do we know, what have we tried, and what can we do to improve outcomes now and in the future? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardwell, R. (1981). Feedback: How does it function? Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. T. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey. Report #3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, J., Stock, W., & Marshall, J. (1999). Meta-analysis of research on a multimedia elementary school curriculum using personal and video-game computers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 329–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K. (n.d.). Using technology to enhance RtI implementation. http://www.rtinetwork.org/getstarted/implement/using-technology-to-enhance-rti-implementation.

  • Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analysis of response-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Califee, R., Chambliss, M., & Beretz, M. (1991). Organizing for comprehension and composition. In W. Ellis (Ed.), All language and the creation of literacy (pp. 79–93). Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chism, N. (2004). Using a framework to engage faculty in instructional technologies. Educause Quarterly, 27(2), 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33(4), 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 464–478). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, R. S. (1994). Instructional design and the classroom teacher: Looking back and moving ahead. Educational Technology, 34(3), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embry D. D., & Biglan A. (2008). Evidence-based kernels: Fundamental units of behavioral influence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(3), 75–113.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadel, C., & Lemke, C. (2006). Technology in schools: What the research says? http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/tech_in_schools_what_research_says.pdf.

  • Fixsen, D., Naoom, S. F., Blase, D. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

    Google Scholar 

  • Flecknoe, M. (2002). How can ICT help us to improve education? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouts, J. T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present, and future. Seattle: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, E. J. (2004). The personalized system of instruction: A flexible and effective approach to mastery learning. In D. J. Moran & R. W. Malott (Eds.), Evidence based educational methods (pp. 201–221). San Diego: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2009). On the importance of a unified model of Response-to-intervention. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 41–43.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195–203.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). The early prevention of mathematics difficulty: Its power and limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 257–269.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 581–584. Copyright (c) 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gammon, R. (2011, July 15). itunes app store educational apps 2011 vs. 2009. http://lh-llc.com/itunes-edu-apps-2011-2009.

  • Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention implementation in assessing resistance to intervention. In S. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 244–254). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, M. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

  • Gilbert, S. (1995). Technology and the changing academy. Change, 27(5), 58–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. (1996). Making the most of a slow revolution. Change, 28(2), 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasha, A., & Yanbarger-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies: An applied behavior analysis systems approach. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, W. C. (1997). Why technology has not realized its potential in schools? American Secondary Education, 25(4), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jitendra, A., Carnine, D., & Silbert, J. (1996). Descriptive analysis of fifth grade division instructions in basal mathematics programs: Violations of pedagogy. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(4), 381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M. C., Bhat, P., & Riley, T. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(6), 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jostens Learning Corporation. (1997). Survey analysis by global strategy group. San Diego: Jostens Learning Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323–341). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In Kamil M. L., Mosenthal P. B., Pearson P. D., & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. III (pp. 771–788). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. (1968). “Goodbye teacher …” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1994) Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. SRI Project Number P10446.001. Arlington: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., Ihlo, T., & Young, N. D. (2012). Modifying instruction within tiers in multitiered intervention programs. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layng, T. V. J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2004). Selected for success: How Headsprout Reading Basics™ teaches beginning reading? In D. J. Moran & R. Malott (Eds.), Evidence-based educational methods. St. Louis: Elsevier Science/Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leggett, W. P., & Persichitte, K. A. (1998). Blood, sweat, and TEARS: 50 years of technology implementation obstacles. Tech Trends, 43(3), 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, C. K. (1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. III (pp. 743–770). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovitt, T. C. (1994). Tactics for teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumley, D., & Bailey, G. D. (1993). Planning for technology: A guidebook for school administrators. New York: Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, I., & Olofsson, A. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension? Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 282–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator’s guide to data-driven decision making. Technology & Learning, 22(11), 18–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 230–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483–490.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Center on Response to Intervention. (n.d.). What is RTI? http://www.rti4success.org/whatisrti.

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (NIH Publication No. 00-4654). Bethesda: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, R., Samson, G., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The effects of computer based instruction in elementary schools: A quantitative synthesis [Abstract]. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20(2), 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. J. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(2), 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niess, N. L. (1991). Computer-using teachers in a new decade. Education and Computing, 7(3–4), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neal, J. B., Jr. (1991). Proceedings from frontiers in education twenty-first annual conference: Engineering education in a new world order. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in primary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 315–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. (2012). The impact of anonymous and assigned use of student response systems on student achievement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(2), 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Learning 2.0––The impact of social media on learning in Europe. Policy brief. JRC Scientific and Technical Report. EUR JRC56958 EN. http://www.ict-21.ch/com-ict/IMG/pdf/learning-2.0-EU-17pages-JRC56958.pdf.

  • Reiser, R. A. (2012). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D. (1989). The impact of microcomputer-based instruction on teaching and learning. A review of recent research. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346082).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., Castine, W. H., & King, F. J. (1988). Assessing the impact of computer-based instruction: A review of recent research. Computers in the Schools, 5, 117–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B. V., & Berliner, D. C. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumph, R., Ninness, C., McCuller, G., Holland, J., Ward, T., & Wilbourn, T. (2007). Stimulus change: Reinforcer or punisher? Reply to Hursh. Behavior and Social Issues, 16(1), 47–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. V., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. (n.d.). Tiered instruction and intervention in a response-to-intervention model. RTI Action Network. http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction/tiered-instruction-and-intervention-rti-model.

  • Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2000). Children and computer technology: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlechter, T. M. (Ed.). (1991). Problems and promises of computer-based training. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: Addendum, an analysis of the games category of the iTunes app store. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. (1994). No computer know how? Electronic Learning, 13(5), 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, K. J. (2003). A consumer’s guide to evaluating a core reading program Grades K–3: A critical elements analysis. http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/rti03_reading/cons_guide_instr.pdf.

  • Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 3, 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Seattle: Morningside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in reading first schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotter, A. (1997). Taking technology’s measure. In Technology counts: Schools and reform in the information age. Education Week, 17(11), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twyman, J. S. (2011). Emerging technologies and behavioural cusps: A new era for behaviour analysis? European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12(2), 461–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twyman, J. S., & Sota, M. (2008). Identifying research-based practices for RTI: Scientifically-based instruction. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 9(2), 86–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twyman, J. S., Layng, T. V. J., Stikeleather, G., & Hobbins, K. A. (2004). A non-linear approach to curriculum design: The role of behavior analysis in building an effective reading program. In W. L. Heward et al. (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education, Vol. 3 (pp. 55–68). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress, Office Of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. OTA-EHR-616 Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9541.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., & Raack, L. (1999). Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Oakbrook: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, W. (1992) Educational technology: A broader vision. Educational and Urban Society, 24(4), 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, G., & Hammons, J. (2002). Professional development: Setting the context. In G. E. Watts (Vol. Ed.), Enhancing community colleges through professional development. New directions for community colleges (number 120, pp. 5–10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision-making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10, 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. (2011). Using technology to personalize learning and assess students in real-time. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J. (1984). Beyond problem solving and comprehension: An exploration of quantitative reasoning. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, B. W., & Olson, R. K. (1995). Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, B., Ring, J., & Olson, K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer assisted-remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 197–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, J. E., & McCleod, S. (2007). Using technology tools to monitor response to intervention. In S. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 396–407). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts Medical School/Shriver Center and The Center on Innovations in Learning, NY, US

    Janet S. Twyman PhD, BCBA

  2. Illinois, USA

    Melinda S. Sota PhD

Authors
  1. Janet S. Twyman PhD, BCBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melinda S. Sota PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet S. Twyman PhD, BCBA .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Barbara Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, Santa Barbara, California, USA

    Shane R. Jimerson

  2. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

    Matthew K. Burns

  3. Education Research & Consulting, Inc., FAIRHOPE, Alabama, USA

    Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Twyman, J., Sota, M. (2016). Educational Technology and Response to Intervention: Affordances and Considerations. In: Jimerson, S., Burns, M., VanDerHeyden, A. (eds) Handbook of Response to Intervention. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation