Advertisement

Confronting the Known Unknown: How the Concept of Opportunity to Learn Can Advance Tier 1 Instruction

  • Alexander KurzEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I argue that the establishment of Tier 1 quality standards and the conceptual expansion of OTL are interconnected, mutually beneficial activities important for truly accessible instruction. To this end, I focus on my conceptual synthesis of OTL (Kurz, Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy. NewYork, NY: Springer, 2011) due to its (a) operational definition, (b) application in general and special education, and (c) measurement via an online teacher log. I begin by reviewing what is known about high-quality Tier 1 instruction and OTL, continue by synthesizing both literature bases to identify potential sources of evidence for high-quality Tier 1, elaborate by highlighting possible measurement options via a case example, and conclude by setting a research and development agenda for Tier 1 OTL.

Keywords

Opportunity to learn Accessible instruction Tier 1 instruction 

References

  1. Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Wanzek, J., Greulich, L., Schatschneider, C., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). To wait in tier 1 or intervene immediately. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 11–27.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532234 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. W. (1986). Opportunity to learn. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Armbuster, B. B., Stevens, R. J., & Rosenshine, B. (1977). Analyzing content coverage and emphasis: A study of three curricula and two tests (Technical Report No. 26). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  7. Berkovits, I., Reddy, L. A., & Kurz, A. (2017). Teacher log of students’ opportunity to learn and classroom observation: A preliminary investigation of convergence. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Borg, W. R. (1979). Teacher coverage of academic content and pupil achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(5), 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borg, W. R. (1980). Time and school learning. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 33–72). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  11. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York, NY: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723–733.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chard, D. J. (2012). Systems impact: Issues and trends in improving school outcomes for all learners through multitier instructional models. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(4), 198–202.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451212462876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Comber, L. C., & Keeves, J. P. (1973). Science education in nineteen countries. New York, NY: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  17. Compton, D. L., Gilbert, J. K., Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Cho, E., et al. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 204–216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442151 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies, M. D., Elliott, S. N., & Cumming, J. (2016). Documenting support needs and adjustment gaps for students with disabilities: Teacher practices in Australian classrooms and on national tests. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(12), 1252–1269.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1159256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denham, C., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (1980). Time to learn. Washington, DC: National Institute for Education.Google Scholar
  21. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). How reading outcomes for students with learning disabilities are related to instructional grouping formats: A meta-analytic review. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 105–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, A. G. (1999). Assessment accommodations guide. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
  25. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263–279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to student diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195–203.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning. Chicago, IL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  29. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gandhi, A. G., Holdheide, L., Zumeta, R., & Danielson, L. (2016, February). Understanding and operationalizing evidence-based practices within multi-tiered systems of support. Paper presented at the annual Pacific Research Coast Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 773–787). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  33. Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135–154.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. E. (1976). The teaching–learning process in elementary schools: A synoptic view. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(1), 5–43.Google Scholar
  35. Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2015). An opportunity to learn US history: What NAEP data suggest regarding the opportunity gap. The High School Journal, 98(3), 226–249.  https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2015.0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herman, J. L., Klein, D. C., & Abedi, J. (2000). Assessing students’ opportunity to learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holdheide, L. (2016, February). Tier 1 instructional practice: Mixed messages and missed opportunities. Paper presented at the annual Pacific Research Coast Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Husén, T. (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  39. Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1978). Curriculum biases in reading achievement tests. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10(4), 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  41. Karger, J. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities: A discussion of the interrelationship between IDEA and NCLB. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.Google Scholar
  42. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., & Jamgochian, E. M. (2011). Accommodations and modifications that support accessible instruction. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), The handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Kurz, A. (2011). Access to what should be taught and will be tested: Students’ opportunity to learn the intended curriculum. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 99–129). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kurz, A. (2016, February). Measuring Opportunity to learn through a teacher log. Paper presented at the annual Pacific Research Coast Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Kurz, A. (2017, February). Educational redemption and instructional coaching. Paper presented at the annual Pacific Research Coast Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2011). Overcoming barriers to access for students with disabilities: Testing accommodations and beyond. In M. Russell & M. Kavanaugh (Eds.), Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques (pp. 31–58). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2012). MyiLOGS: My instructional learning opportunities guidance system (Version 2) [Software and training videos]. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  48. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., & Yel, N. (2014). Assessing students’ opportunity to learn the intended curriculum using an online teacher log: Initial validity evidence. Educational Assessment, 19(3), 159–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.934606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., Lemons, C. J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Kettler, R. J. (2014). Assessing opportunity-to-learn for students with and without disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(1), 24–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414522685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., & Roach, A. T. (2015). Addressing the missing instructional data problem: Using a teacher log to document tier 1 instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36(6), 361–373.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514567365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kurz, A., Reddy, L. A., & Glover, T. A. (2017). A multidisciplinary framework of instructional coaching. Theory Into Practice, 56, 66–77.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1260404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kurz, A., Reichenberg, R., & Yel, N. (2017). Setting opportunity-to-learn standards for effective teaching. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  53. Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us (REL no. #RJ96006101). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.Google Scholar
  54. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  56. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Metcalf, T. (2012). What’s your plan? Accurate decision making within a multi-tier system of supports: Critical areas in Tier 1. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction/tier1/accurate-decisionmaking-within-a-multi-tier-system-of-supports-critical-areas-in-tier-1
  58. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms (final report). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  60. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 60–80). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Floden, R. E., & Freeman, D. J. (1978). Impact on what? The importance of content covered (Research Series No. 2). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  62. Reddy, L. A., Fabiano, G. A., & Jimerson, S. R. (2013). Assessment of general education teachers’ Tier 1 classroom practices: Contemporary science, practice, and policy. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 273–276.  https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Roach, A. T., Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2015). Facilitating opportunity to learn for students with disabilities with instructional feedback data. Preventing School Failure, 59(3), 168–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.901288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in third-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2009). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from the study of instructional improvement. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. RTI Action Network, http://www.rtinetwork.org.
  67. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  68. Schmidt, W. H., & Burroughs, N. A. (2013). Opening the black box: Prospects for using international large-scale assessments to explore classroom effects. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 236–212.  https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.3.236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: An international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15603982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why Schools Matter: a cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  71. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims volume 1: A cross- national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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, 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vannest, K. J., & Parker, R. I. (2010). Measuring time: The stability of special education teacher time use. Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., Scammacca, N., Linan-Thompson, S., & Woodruff, A. L. (2009). Response to early reading interventions: Examining higher responders and lower responders. Exceptional Children, 75, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walberg, H. J. (1980). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. H. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education (pp. 81–110). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  78. Walberg, H. J. (1986). Syntheses of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214–229). New York, NY: Macmillian Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  79. Walberg, H. J. (1988). Synthesis of research on time and learning. Educational Leadership, 45(6), 76–85.Google Scholar
  80. Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2010). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education? Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (NISE Research Monograph No. 6). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.Google Scholar
  83. Webb, N. L. (2006). Identifying content for student achievement tests. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 155–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  84. Winfield, L. F. (1993). Investigating test content and curriculum content overlap to assess opportunity to learn. The Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 288–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations