Internet Explorer 7, 8, and 9 are no longer supported. Please use a newer browser.
Concourse works best with JavaScript enabled.
University of St. Francis logo · College of Education · Regional Educational Academy for Leadership

Dissecting Reading (Literacy): Looking Past the RTI Colors

  • Template 2015
  • Section TMPL
  • 1 Credits
  • 07/22/2015 to 07/22/2115
  • Modified 07/19/2020

Mission Statement

As a Catholic university rooted in the liberal arts, we are a welcoming community of learners challenged by Franciscan values and charism, engaged in a continuous pursuit of knowledge, faith, wisdom, and justice, and ever mindful of a tradition that emphasizes reverence for creation, compassion and peacemaking. We strive for academic excellence in all programs, preparing women and men to contribute to the world through service and leadership. 


Focuses on the core concepts of Response to Intervention, reading assessment procedures and the process of analyzing reading data for prescriptive, kill-specific interventions.  Participants will also learn how to examine progress monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of an intervention.


College of Education Mission

The mission of the College of Education is to prepare competent and caring educators who understand students, serve the community and develop professionally to become ethical decision-makers and leaders.

Understanding Students

Candidates will develop an understanding of the Response to Intervention framework, and how to analyze data to prescribe interventions for struggling readers. Candidates will examine how they currently use universal screeners, progress monitoring, and the problem solving process when making decisions regarding reading interventions. Candidates will also evaluate their school’s multi-tiered model of service delivery in the area of reading, and determine strengths and areas of need.

Serving the Community

Candidates will learn how to provide information to appropriate audiences in the school community regarding the Response to Intervention framework and procedures for reading, as well as the strengths and areas of need within their school’s multi-tiered model of service delivery. Additionally, candidates will have the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues about the use of reading universal screeners, progress monitoring, and analyzing data to inform instruction.

Finding Our Professional Selves

Candidates will develop an understanding that assessments for screening, diagnosis, and progress monitoring, as well as the problem-solving process, are critical in determining reading interventions for struggling readers. Candidates will also demonstrate the ability to communicate their ideas about Response to Intervention assessments, materials and processes by interacting with colleagues in a professional manner.


Access to standards referenced in this section can be found HERE

By the conclusion of the course, each participant will be able to do the following:

1. Understand the foundations of the Response to Intervention framework (NASDSE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; NBPTS 1,2)

2. Understand the components of reading, and how these components affect data outcomes and reading interventions. (NASDSE 4; NBPTS 2,4)

3. Evaluate the validity and fidelity of a Reading Response to Intervention framework, specifically the use of assessments, monitoring student learning, and use of data for instructional decisions (NASDSE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; NBPTS 4,5)

4. Use assessment data to plan and evaluate instruction (NASDSE 5,6,7; NBPTS 1,2,3,4,5)

5. Communicate to an audience the Reading Response to Intervention framework as it compares to the candidate’s school’s RTI framework (NBPTS 2, 4, 5)


All required materials will be supplied within the course.


Candidates will respond to weekly discussion prompts.

  • Course outcomes 1,2,3
  • Standards NASDE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; NBPTS 1,2; NASDE 4; NBTS 2,4; NASDE1,2,3,4,5,6,7; NBPTS 4,5

Analysis of the School RTI Process

Candidates will analyze the implementation of RTI within a school by synthesizing Module readings, activities, and personal reflections of pedagogical practices within the RTI framework.

  • Course outcomes 1,2

Standards NASDSE 1,2,3,4,5,6; NBPTS 4,5; NASDE 5,6,7; NBPTS 1,2,3,4,5

Reading Assessment Inventory
Candidates will examine their school’s use of universal screeners, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring, to identify reading needs and make instructional decisions.

  • Course outcomes 1,3,4
  • Standards NASDSE1,2,3,4,5,6,7; NBPTS 1,2,3,4,5

Evaluate  an RTI Problem Solving Action Plan

Candidates will evaluate their school’s Problem Solving Process and how the process helps to prescribe reading interventions for a student.

  • Course outcomes 1, 4
  • Standards NASDSE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; NBPTS 1,2,3,4,5

Create a Reading Response to Intervention Presentation for Your School
Candidates will create a presentation for educators that synthesizes the research on an effective RTI framework, reviews the RTI framework of the Candidate’s school, discusses the strengths and needs of that school’s framework.

  • Course outcome 5
  • Standards NBPTS 2,4,5

Course Policies

Policies for the College of Education at University of St. Francis

CLICK HERE (requires active student account) for policies, including but not limited to:

  • Method of Instruction
  • Expectations of Candidates
  • Online Courses
  • Attendance Policies for Site-Based and Online Courses
  • Minimum Standards for Writing
  • Computer and Digital Information Literacy Skills

Course Evaluations | Surveys

Information gathered through course evaluations and surveys is an important part of maintaining quality and continuous improvement in courses, and it is the University’s expectation that students will thoughtfully participate in this evaluation process.

Institutional Policies

Students should use the USF portal as the first resource for guidance and support on items such as student complaints, safety, security and transportation questions, contact information for various USF departments, student support services such as counseling and academic resources. Information on these resources can be found in the For Students section of the USF portal.

A complete listing of university policies and procedures can be found in the University of St. Francis Catalog and Student Handbooks. 

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity requires that all academic work be wholly the product of an identified individual or individuals. Collaboration is only acceptable when it is explicitly acknowledged. Ethical conduct is the obligation of every member of the University community, and breaches of academic integrity constitute serious offenses. Since a lack of integrity hinders the student’s academic development, it cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Violations include but are not limited to: cheating, fabrication, facilitating academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and denying others access to information or material. See the University of St. Francis Catalog for further clarification and information on grievance procedures.

Services and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities (ADA)

The University strives to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). A student who requires special accommodations or arrangements due to a disability should contact the Office of Disability Services. This contact preferably should occur no later than the first week of classes. Early contact before the semester starts is encouraged to allow sufficient time to provide accommodations. Extra time is needed for some types of accommodations such as sign language interpreters or special text formatting. Should a need arrive after the start of a semester; the student is encouraged to contact the Office of Disability Services as soon as possible. Note that accommodations are not retroactive. Each case will be reviewed on an individual basis to determine reasonable and appropriate accommodations.

USF is committed to ensuring the full participation of all students in its programs, regardless of the course format. If you have a documented disability and need a reasonable accommodation to participate in a course, complete course requirements, or benefit from the University’s programs or services, please contact the Office of Disability Services at 815-740-3631 or [email protected] . The Office of Disability Services is in the Academic Resource Center (ARC) and is located on the second floor of the LaVerne and Dorothy Brown Library in room L214. Consultations are welcome, please contact the Office of Disability Services for an appointment.

Technology Support

  1. The Department of Academic Technology (DAT) administers the learning management system Canvas. If you are experiencing any difficulty using Canvas or need technical assistance, you have several options to receive support, including:
  1. 24x7 Live Canvas Support. If you experience technical difficulties or have a question about Canvas, you can receive support 24 hours a day 7 days a week through the Canvas help menu. From the help menu, select Chat with Canvas Support for a “live” text-based click-to-chat session,
  2. select Report a Problem to send an email support request, or speak to someone directly by using the toll-free number listed under the Canvas Support Hotline.

NOTE: Responses to Canvas’ email-based Report a Problem request system will go to your USF email account, NOT your personal email.

2. Online Self-Service Help Resources. A student user guide and other resources for solving issues related to Canvas can be found at LearnItNow

3. Telephone Support from DAT. You can also phone the Department of Academic Technology for personal help at (815) 740-5080 or (866) 337-1497 (toll-free) between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Central Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

For any technical support issues that are not related to Canvas, please contact the USF Technology Support Center (TSC). You can reach them via:

Notice of Copyright

This course may contain copyrighted materials that are intended to support the learning experiences of students currently enrolled in the course. No student may retain or further disseminate any copyrighted materials, in their entirety or any portion thereof, under penalty of law.

Academic Support Services

The Academic Resource Center (ARC) located in Room L214 in the Library (815-740-5060) offers various types of academic services.  Online and distance learning students can contact ARC for appropriate resources.  ARC serves students who need tutoring in many areas of study including writing and math.  Library services include a number of online services and full text databases.  Call the Library at 815-740-5041 for additional information.  If you need academic-related resources or assistance, please contact the Academic Resource Center.

Additional Items

Course References

Burns, M. (2010). Repsonse-to-intervention research: Is the sum of the parts as great as theWhole?

Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 36(2), Retrieved from

Burns, M., Sario,R., & Patterson,H. (n.d.). Response to intervention for literacy in secondary Sshools. Retrieved from

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Response to intervention: Blueprint for practitioners,
Policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57-61. Retrieved from RtIblueprint.pdf

What is rti? . Retrieved from

Zirkel, P. The common lore about rti. Retrieved from

Denton, C. (n.d.). Classroom reading instruction that supports struggling readers: Key
components for effective teaching. Retrieved from

Hughes, C., & Dexter, D. (n.d.), Universal screening within a response-to-intervention model from the RTI Action Network, Retrieved from

Jenkins, J., & Johnson, E. (n.d.). Universal screening for reading problems: Why and how should we do this?.Retrieved from

Metcalf, T. (n.d.). What’s your plan? Accurate decision making within a multi-tier system of supports: Critical areas in tier 2. from the RTI Action Network, Retrieved from

Pool, J., & Johnson, E. (n.d.). Screening for reading problems in preschool and kindergarten: An overview of select measures. Retrieved from

Pool, J., & Johnson, E. (n.d.). Screening for reading problems grades 1 thru 3: An overview of select measures. Retrieved from

Pool, J., & Johnson, E. (n.d.). Screening for reading problems grades 4 through 12:
Retrieved from

Fuchs, L. (2009). Progress monitoring within a multi-level prevention system. Retrieved from

Fuchs, L. (n.d.). Validated forms of progress monitoring in reading and mathematics. Retrieved from

Jenkins, J., Hudson, R., & Lee, S. (2007). Using cbm-reading assessments to monitor progress.

Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 33(2), Retrieved from

Mahdavi, J., & Haager, D. (2007). Linking progress monitoring results to interventions.
Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 33(2), Retrieved from

Allaine, J., & Eberhart, N. (n.d.). Rti and the common core: A golden opportunity, not just one more thing to do!. Retrieved from

Afflerbach, P. (2007). Understanding and using reading assessment, K-12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

American Institutes for Research, National Assessment Governing Board. (2009). Reading assessment for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Retrieved from U.S. Government Printing Office website:

Barratine, S. (Ed.). (1999). Reading assessment, principles and practices for elementary teachers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Bell, S.M., & McCallum, S. (2008). Handbook of reading assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fuchs, L. (Performer), Kovaleski, J. (Performer), Carruth, J. (Performer), & McMillian, D.
(Performer) (2009.). Data based decision making, An RTI Action Network National Online Forum. [Video podcast]. Retrieved from

Gillet, W. G., & Temple, C. (2000). Understanding reading problems and instruction. New York: Longman.

Jetton, T.L., & Alexander, P.A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290-308.

Johns, J. L., Lenski, S. D., & Elish-Piper, L. (1999). Early literacy assessments and teaching strategies. Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Johnston, P., & Costello, P. (2005). Theory and research into practice: Principles for literacy assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 256-267. doi:10.1598/RRQ 40.2.6

Juel, C. (1994). Learning to read and write in one elementary school. New York: Springer-Verlag.

McAndrews, S.L. (2008). Diagnostic literacy assessments and instructional strategies: A literacy specialist’s resource. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McLaughlin, M., & De Voogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension:
expanding reader response. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 52

McKenna, M.C., & Walpole, S. (2005). How well does assessment inform our reading instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 84-86. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.1.9

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, (n.d.). Using cbm-reading assessments to monitor progress. Retrieved from

National Writing Project. (2012). The reading-writing connection. Retrieved from

Oregon Department of Education. (Performer) (n.d.). Administer progress monitoring measures to all students. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from

Peterson, A. (Performer) (2009). The essential components of rti: Screening. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from

RTI Action Network, The Center of Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). Implementing rti with students with disabilities. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from

Stahl, S.A. and Murray, B.A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and
its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221-234.

Tierney, R.J., Moore, D.W., Valencia, S.W., & Johnston, P. (2000). How will literacy be assessed in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 244-250. Doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.2.3

Valencia, S.W., & Wixson, K.K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 909-935). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). A three-tier model for preventing reading difficulties and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–28). Baltimore: Brookes.

Waite, W. (Performer) (2012, June). How does the rti framework intersect with the common core state standards inititative> [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from

Wallace, T. (Producer). RTI Ensuring Achievement for All [Web Video]. Retrieved from