![]() |
Creating Shared Language for Collaboration in RTIResources for this ArticleAdditional Articles
Additional ResourcesThe International Reading Association (IRA) Commission on Response to Intervention (RTI) has published a set of six principles to guide its members in the planning and implementation of RTI initiatives (IRA Commission on RTI, 2009). These principles revolve around (1) instruction, (2) responsive teaching and differentiation, (3) assessment, (4) collaboration, (5) systemic and comprehensive approach, and (6) expertise. The importance of collaboration is referenced throughout, for example:
For collaboration to be successful participants in the process have to create shared language for communication. The purpose of this article is to explore this issue.
Collaboration and RTI
Ideally, RTI is neither a general education nor a special education initiative, but rather a total school initiative with the goal of optimizing instruction for all students, including those who are struggling with language and literacy. Within this framework for identifying and supporting students who experience difficulties, collaboration among educational professionals and with students and their families is imperative for RTI to be successful.
The first step in professional collaboration is to recognize that traditionally held notions about who works with whom, and toward what end, may no longer apply. For example, in many schools across the country it is assumed that special educators teach students within a different range of academic performance than general educators. Special educators have often been viewed as educators with a specific set of skills and underlying knowledge who teach students requiring specialized instruction. Special educators may be expected to use interventions that may or may not be linked to the general education curriculum and they may be accustomed to monitoring progress with data that general educators do not understand or appreciate.
Within an RTI framework, however, general educators teach students who struggle at times, but whose struggles are viewed within the general educator’s realm of expertise, with or without support from other professionals. Thus, the special educator may work with the classroom teacher in supporting learners who struggle, regardless of their label or eligibility.
Ideally, RTI is carried out within a context of true collaboration and shared expertise. In this sense, RTI is a very different way of conceptualizing general and special education, the link between the two, and the roles of other teaching specialists. Whereas general and special educators may be used to working independently of one another, or in separate silos, RTI calls for deliberate, intentional, ongoing collaboration—not to be confused with cooperation, which can involve working together without a shared purpose. We define collaboration as joining of forces, pooling of resources, and sharing of expertise order to meet shared goals for instruction and assessment. Collaboration should be supported at district, state, and national levels and reflected in the establishment of common ground among professional associations, as well.
The key players in this collaborative effort are all of those who have expertise relevant to student learning, including, but not necessarily limited to:
The Need for Shared Understanding
If collaboration is a key to successful RTI processes, then it is essential to define further the nature of productive collaboration. According to Schrage (1995) "Collaboration is the process of shared creation: Two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own" (p. 33). Following Schrage’s reasoning, we might ask: What is needed to create this type of shared understanding?
Those involved in RTI collaboration must have a common framework within which to work and communicate, including the same basic understanding of RTI and its essential processes, as well as a common language to discuss RTI. Language itself, then, is a critical tool for successful collaboration. Bean, Grumet, and Bulazo (1999) highlighted communication skills as one of the keys to collaboration among educators, along with mutual respect and flexibility. Language should be an asset, not a liability. Without intentional focus, however, language can interfere with productive collaboration. Professionals across disciplines do not always use the same language, nor are they always aware of how other professions use words. In addition, professionals do not necessarily always have much experience talking outside of their respective disciplines. They are used to the vocabulary of their professions and may not even be aware of the language used in other disciplines.
If collaborators do not have shared meaning for terms associated with RTI, confusion may result; for example, the terms Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 may mean very different things to different educators. Without shared meaning, educators may not be able to engage successfully in problem-solving and decision-making. For example, how can a reading specialist have a conversation with a speech-language pathologist about their complementary roles in assisting teachers with core instruction if they do not have the same understanding of core instruction? Perhaps more significantly, certain terms may alienate specific stakeholders.
Examples of Language that May Cause Confusion
Educators who have joined the initiative to use RTI may have different ways of referring to similar constructs; for example, some educators use the terms Response to Instruction or Response to Instruction/Intervention rather than Response to Intervention. The following section is about words or terms that are important for collaborators to discuss to reach a shared understanding of what they mean. This list is not meant to be exhaustive or prescriptive. Instead, it is meant to stimulate thought and discussion in local contexts for purposes of clarification and effective collaboration.
Maximizing Language as a Tool for Collaboration
How can stakeholders involved in RTI address the shared language issue? Suggestions include:
Conclusion
In this article we focused on the use of language among professionals as a tool for collaboration. However, language use in partnerships with parents and students are other areas of concern. RTI presents a whole new lexicon for parents. For students, understanding the processes of RTI is crucial to their active participation. For these reasons language as a tool for collaboration with parents and students is an important issue that deserves more in-depth treatment than can be addressed in this article.
As continued collaboration across diverse situations reveals new areas of confusion or misunderstanding, collaboration teams must revisit their language use and redefine their shared understandings. The tool in Appendix A, "Determining Our Language of Collaboration," can be used to get started. Ideally, this conversation will begin with a meeting designed specifically to discuss the issue of language use and shared understandings in RTI collaboration, but it will not end there. Instead, it will become an integral part of how collaborators work together.
Sometimes throughout this process, educators will stretch beyond their comfort zones. A commitment to shared understanding takes tremendous effort and a dedication to civil dialogue predicated on mutual trust and respect. We hope that within schools districts, states, and national forums, everyone will devote time and energy to the language of collaboration. Collaboration is a long-term investment in educators working together.
ReferencesBean, R. M., Grumet, J. V., Bulazo, J. (1999). Learning from each other: Collaboration between classroom teachers and reading specialist interns. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(4), 273–287. Retrieved February 12, 2006.
Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D., & Burke, C. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. Katonah, NY: Richard Irwin.
IRA Commission on RTI (February/March 2009). Working draft of guiding principles. Reading Today, 26(4), 1–6. Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams. New York, NY: Doubleday.
* Please note that authors are listed in alphabetical order and that each contributed equally to this collaborative effort. Back To Top |