Saturday, October 22, 2011

Traditional Teaching vs. Response to Intervention

One of the main goals of RTI is to meet the needs of all students inclusively, and I think this is a much more productive way to teach than the traditional method. In the traditional approach to teaching, teachers usually use the same method of instruction for the whole class, and those students who are consistently unsuccessful are often removed from the general education classroom. This assumes that there is one "right" way to learn, and teaches children that if they are not able to fit into expectations, then they are different from their classmates, and they have failed in some way. Using RTI means that teachers review each student's progress and adapt their future lessons to meet the needs of each student. Students who need a little extra help receive it without being removed from their general education classroom entirely.
Another great reason to choose RTI over the traditional teaching method is that it creates a team among all the teachers and staff who come in contact with the students of one class. In the traditional method of instruction, general education teachers analyze their observations and make decisions about teaching their class on their own. In RTI, teachers meet to share observations, data, and ideas for better serving individual students. This gives students more continuity throughout their school day, and keeps all teachers on the same page so that they know exactly what each student needs. It also holds all teachers accountable by giving them specific goals to work toward for specific students. Also, the constant documentation and informal assessment practices of RTI help teachers make informed decisions about which students might benefit from a different style of learning or interaction. Overall, RTI benefits all students and teachers by maintaining continuity, creating a sense of community throughout the school, and educating each individual in the best way possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment