dc.contributor.author	McClain, Donna Highsmith	en_US
dc.coverage.spatial	United States, Georgia	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	2007-2009 CE	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2010-09-22T16:51:09Z	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2011-03-02T17:29:02Z
dc.date.available	2010-09-22T16:51:09Z	en_US
dc.date.available	2011-03-02T17:29:02Z
dc.date.issued	2009-12	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/450	en_US
dc.description.abstract	This qualitative study examined Response to Intervention (RtI) in a rural preschool program. The researcher sought to understand the implementation of RtI and how it actually looked in an in vivo setting. Purposeful sampling was used to select the preschool site, and criterion sampling was used to select participants for interviews. Two focus group sessions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Ten preschool staff members including seven regular education pre kindergarten teachers, one speech language pathologist, and two special education teachers were interviewed. In addition, eight parents were interviewed individually. Interviews were tape recorded using a Sony ICD BX 700 digital recorder, and results were transcribed. Other data sources included continuous field notes and memos maintained by the researcher classroom observations of interventions, lesson plans maintained by teachers, anecdotal records, RtI referral forms, and other documents. Data was organized into coded sections and using the NVivo 8 data analysis computer software, themes were identified. Categories and themes were analyzed using the grounded theory approach as the dominant method of analysis via categorical aggregation. Data analysis through categorical aggregation indicated that the following factors appeared to positively impact RtI implementation in preschool: knowing childrens backgrounds, frequent contact with parents, and getting help from special education personnel. Factors negatively impacting the process included the following: increasing demands on teacher time, managing red tape and legal issues, lack of clear guidance with too much ambiguity, and concerns about accountability. RtI resulted in fewer referrals to special education, but the long term ramifications are not known.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Background ..............................................................................................................1 The Problem .................................................................................................2 Need for Current Study ................................................................................3 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................5 Research Questions ..................................................................................................6 Context .....................................................................................................................6 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................8 Summary ................................................................................................................10 II. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction ............................................................................................................12 Historical and Legal Background ..............................................................12 Exclusionary Factors and Disproportionality ............................................17 RtI and Early Literacy ................................................................................19 SST in Georgia .......................................................................................................20 RtI Models and SST ...................................................................................21 Georgia Pyramid of Interventions ...........................................................22 National Models of RtI ..........................................................................................24 iii Heartland, Iowa ..........................................................................................25 Vanderbilt University, Tennessee ..............................................................25 Outcome Driven Model .............................................................................27 Reschlys Four Tier Model ........................................................................27 Barnett and Colleagues ..............................................................................28 Sugai and Colleagues .................................................................................28 Problem Validation Screening Model ........................................................29 Recognition and Response .........................................................................31 Integrated Preschool Model .......................................................................31 RtI and Use in Preschool........................................................................................32 Georgias Preschool Programs and RtI ..................................................................34 Summary ................................................................................................................35 III. METHOD Choosing a Qualitative Inquiry ..............................................................................36 Instrumental Case Study ........................................................................................40 Grounded Theory ...................................................................................................42 Researcher as Interpreter ........................................................................................44 Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................50 iv IV. PROCEDURES Data Collection ......................................................................................................55 Participants .............................................................................................................60 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................66 V. RESULTS Case Study .............................................................................................................71 Vignetttes .............................................................................................................126 Categorical Aggregation ......................................................................................176 VI. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS Discussion..................................................................................189 Implications of RtI Implementation in Preschool....................................196 Recommendations for Practice.........................................................197 Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................201 Concluding Thoughts ...........................................................................................202 A Tale of Preschool Past: Priming the Pump REFERENCE LIST APPENDICES Appendix A: IRB Approval and Extension .........................................................227 Appendix B Participant consent...........................................................................231 Appendix C: Questionnaire Guides .....................................................................234 Appendix D: RtI Referral Forms .........................................................................237 Appendix E: Concept Map ...................................................................................241 Appendix F: RtI Flow Chart and Procedures .......................................................243 Appendix G: Sample Lesson Plan with RtI Embedded .......................................249 Appendix H: Parent Consent ...............................................................................252 Appendix I: Table of Research Questions, Categories, Codes, and Data ...........255 Appendix J: Tiers of Intervention Guide for Preschool .......................................264 Appendix K: Pre referral Forms for RtI ..............................................................280 Appendix L: Descriptions of Tests ......................................................................291 Appendix M: Sample Georgia Eligibility form 2007 and 2009 ..........................295 Appendix N: Preschool ABC Data Collection Tool ............................................315 Appendix 0: Tier 2 Intervention Plan for Marquez .............................................317 Appendix P: Kindergarten Readiness Test ..........................................................323 Appendix Q: Letter and Numeral Fluency Forms ...............................................326 Appendix R: Checklist for Speech/Language Monitoring...................................330	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Preschool	en_US
dc.title	Priming the Pump: A Case Study of Implementation of Response to Intervention in Preschool	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Curriculum and Instruction	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Clevenger-Schmertzing, Lorraine	en_US
dc.description.committee	Schmertzing, Richard W.	en_US
dc.description.committee	Hilgert, Larry	en_US
dc.description.committee	Barnette, Ron	en_US
dc.description.degree	Ed.D.	en_US
dc.description.major	Education	en_US