Preservice Teacher Education and Response to Intervention Within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: What Can We Learn from Research and Practice?

  • David H. AllsoppEmail author
  • Jennie L. Farmer
  • David Hoppey


This chapter provides teacher educators and policy makers with suggestions for integrating RTI within preservice teacher preparation programs. A rationale for the need to do this and the corresponding empirical research base are described. Based on a review of relevant literature in the areas of teacher education, professional development, and RTI, five overall suggestions that teacher educators and policy makers can use to frame the improvement of preservice preparation in RTI are offered. These suggestions include systematically integrating RTI content across preservice programs, emphasizing data literacy, emphasizing essential content and pedagogical content knowledge, emphasizing knowledge of instructional practices that promote positive outcomes for students across instructional tiers, and emphasizing practices for engaging families in the RTI process. Each suggestion is discussed and key aspects to implementation are described with support from the literature. The chapter concludes with final thoughts and suggestions for future research.


Teacher Educator Preservice Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teacher Education Program Instructional Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al Otaiba, S., & Lake, V. E. (2007). Preparing special educators to teach reading and use curriculum-based assessments. Reading & Writing, 20(6), 591–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allsopp, D. H., Alvarez McHatton, P., DeMarie, D., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Connecting course and field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  3. Allsopp, D. H., Alvarez McHatton, P., Ray, S. N. E., & Farmer, J. L. (2010). Mathematics RTI: A problem-solving approach to creating an effective model. Horsham: LRP Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013–037). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  5. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51–73. doi:10.1086/499715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes, A. C., & Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response to intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basham, J. D., Israel, M., Graden, J., Poth, R., & Winston, M. (2010). A comprehensive approach to RTI: Embedding universal design for learning and technology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 243–255.Google Scholar
  10. Baum, A. C., & McMurray-Schwarz, P. (2004). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about family involvement: Implications for teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(1), 57–61. doi:10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000039645.97144.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bean, R., & Lillenstein, J. (2012) Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel, The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491–501. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beecher, C. C. (2011). Response to intervention: A socio-cultural perspective of the problems and the possibilities. Journal of Education, 191(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  13. Bryant, D. P., & Barrera, M. (2009). Diane P. Bryant and Manual Barrera: Changing roles for educators within the framework of response-to-intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M. M. (2008). Mathematics interventions for first- and second- grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 20–32. doi:10.1177/0741932507309712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  16. Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ). (2013). TEACHING 2030: Leveraging teacher preparation 2.0. Accessed 9 May 2013.
  17. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejar & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  18. Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., Mceachern, K. P., Piazza, P., Power, C., & Ryan, A. (2011). Teachers’ education, teaching practice, and retention: A cross-genre review of recent research. Journal of Education, 191(2), 19–31.Google Scholar
  19. Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers’ views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connor, C. M., Jakobsons, L. J., Crowe, E. C., & Meadows, J. G. (2009). Instruction, student engagement, and reading skill growth in reading first classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research (2nd Edition): learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  22. Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 632–637.Google Scholar
  23. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. doi:10.3102/0034654307.1003393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00265.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., Mazza, J. J., & Gruman, D. H. (2005). Do social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive interventions predict standardized test scores and grades? Journal of School Health, 75, 342–350. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2005.tb06694.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 24–30.Google Scholar
  27. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students with risk for mathematics disability with and without risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 293–306. doi:10.1177/00222194040370040201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Preventing and identifying mathematics disability. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(4), 60–63.Google Scholar
  29. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009a). 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 Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Accessed 15 Aug 2013.
  30. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009b). 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 Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Accessed 15 Aug 2013.
  31. Graue, E., & Brown, C. P. (2003). Preservice teachers’ notions of families and schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(7), 719–735. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Haas, M. (2005). Teaching methods for secondary algebra: A meta-analysis of findings. NASSP Bulletin, 89(642), 24–46. doi:10.1177/019263650508964204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hapgood, S., Palincsar, A. S., Kucan, L., Gelpi-Lomangino, A., & Khasnabis, D. (2005). Investigating a new measure of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching informational text comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  35. Harlacher, J. E., Nelson Walker, N. J., & Sanford, A. K. (2010). The “I” in RTI: Research-based factors for intensifying instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30–38.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277–289. doi:10.1080/00131880802309424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hawkins, R. O., Kroeger, S. D., Musti-Rao, S., Barnett, D. W., & Ward, J. E. (2008). Preservice training in response to intervention: Learning by doing an interdisciplinary field experience. Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 745–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hernández Finch, M. E. (2012). Special considerations with response to intervention and instruction for students with diverse backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 285–296. doi:10.1002/pits.21597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoffman, J. V., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duffy, G., Beretvas, S. N., & the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction. (2005). Teachers’ preparation to teach reading and their experiences and practices in the first three years of teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoover, J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4), 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoppey, D. (2013). Aligning action research and response to intervention: Developing preservice teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Networks, 15(1).
  42. Hoppey, D., Morewood, A., & Bolyard, J. (2010) Response to intervention: A framework for action. In R. Pelton (Ed.) Research in Best Practices in Action Research For Teacher Candidates. (Chapter 8). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Jacobs, J., Gregory, A., Hoppey, D., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). Data literacy: Understanding teachers’ data use in a context of accountability and response to intervention. Action in Teacher Education, 31(3), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Joshi, R., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leedy, A., Bates, P., & Safran, S. P. (2004). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Improving hallway behavior using positive behavior supports. Behavior Disorders, 19, 130–139.Google Scholar
  47. Love, N. (2004). Taking data to new depths. Journal of Staff Development, 25(4), 22–26.Google Scholar
  48. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. McCombes-Tolis, J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (2011). The preparation of preservice elementary educators in understanding and applying the terms, concepts, and practices associated with response to intervention in early reading contexts. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3), 360–389.Google Scholar
  50. McInerney, M., & Elledge, A. (2013). Using a response to intervention framework to improve student learning: A pocket guide for state and district leaders. The Center on Response to Intervention at American Institutes for Research (AIR). Accessed 23 July 2013.
  51. Mercer, C. D., Lane, H. B., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Eisele, M. R. (1996), Empowering teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusive settings. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 226–236. doi:10.1177/074193259601700405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mertler, C. A. (2005). Secondary teachers’ assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference? American Secondary Education, 33(2), 76–92.Google Scholar
  53. Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  54. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mokhtari, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Edwards, P. A. (2007). Making instructional decisions based on data: What, how, and why. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 354–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Müller, E. (2010). Addressing response to intervention within personnel preparation programs: Six approaches. InForum. National Directors of Special Education website: Accessed 8 April 2013.
  57. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Accessed 8 Jan 2013.
  58. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  59. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  60. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  61. National Reading Panel (US), & International Reading Association. (2002). Evidence based reading instruction: Putting the National Reading Panel report into practice. International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  62. Newman-Gonchar, R., Clarke, B., & Gersten, R. (2009). A summary of nine key studies: Multi-tier intervention and response to interventions for students struggling in mathematics. Postsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Accessed 15 Aug 2013.
  63. Prasse, D. P. (2009). The next frontier: Rolling out RTI curriculum in higher education. RTI Action Network at Accessed 23 Sept 2015.
  64. Quilter, S. M., & Gallini, J. K. (2000). Teachers’ assessment literacy and attitudes. The Teacher Educator, 36(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reeves, S., Bishop, J., & Filce, H. (2010). Response to intervention and tier systems: Questions remain as educators make challenging decisions. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(4), 30–35.Google Scholar
  66. Reschly, D. J. (2007). Overview document: Teacher quality for multitiered interventions. National Center on Response to Intervention website: Accessed 21 Sept 2015.
  67. Reschly, A. L. (2009). Schools, families, and RTI. RTI Action Network. Accessed 21 Sept 2015.
  68. Rodriguez, A., & Bohanon, H. (2010). The institutes of higher education checklist report. Loyola University, Center for School Evaluation, Intervention, and Training website:
  69. Sayeski, K. L., & Brown, M. R. (2011). Developing a classroom management plan using a tiered approach. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(1), 8–17.Google Scholar
  70. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth: RMC. Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  71. Schulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwartz, D., Blue, E., McDonald, M., & Pace, D. (2009). Teacher educators and response to intervention: A survey of knowledge, knowledge base, and program changes to teacher preparation programs. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals. Fall 2009, 5–19. Scholar
  73. Shaw, D. M., Dvorak, M. J., & Bates, K. (2007). Promise and possibility—hope for teacher education: Preservice literacy instruction can have an impact. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(3), 223–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting family-school connections and interventions (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 332–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 266–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Spear-Swerling, L., & Chessman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading & Writing, 25(7), 1691–1723. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9338–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behaviors in schools. Exceptionality, 16, 67–77. doi:10.1080/0932830801981138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  81. Washburn, E. K., Joshi, M., & Cantrell, E. B. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21–43. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0040-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson, S. M., & Wineberg, S. (1988). Peering at history through different disciplinary lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525–539.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David H. Allsopp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennie L. Farmer
    • 1
  • David Hoppey
    • 1
  1. 1.TampaUSA

Personalised recommendations