Maximizing Systematic Instruction Throughout a Multi-Tiered System of Supports

Definition

A core feature of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) is configuring instruction to match each student’s needs. For students who demonstrate academic achievement deficits and need supplemental remedial instruction, it must be coordinated among all scheduled activities, evidence-based, and individualized. Each of these matters results in challenges that must be addressed for the promise of an MTSS to be realized. One resolution involves systematic instruction during brief lessons (10 min or less). This instruction is time-sensitive, evidence-based, and can be properly configured for each tier and various students’ needs.

1. Introduction and History

Schools have employed various mechanisms to address the distinctive instructional needs of students who demonstrate an academic achievement deficit. Examples include re-teaching a unit or lesson after the students performed poorly on an exam, conducting after-school tutoring, and providing special services to students with disabilities. However, this work has not always been coordinated within a coherent, well-managed system. Resulting inefficiencies have included (a) students missing instruction presented in their general education classroom because they were removed to receive supplemental remedial instruction, (b) students being misidentified with a disability and provided costly yet unsuitable special education services, and (c) schools employing ill-defined instructional and administrative protocols for staff to follow [1].

Accordingly, concerted efforts have emerged to methodically address these students’ instructional needs. One such effort in the United States that has risen to the forefront is the use of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) [2]. An MTSS comprises a framework that schools use to account for each student’s performance. Within the framework, a data-driven approach for instructional decisions enables schools to match their system of interventions with each student’s instructional needs [3,4].

The MTSS’s evolution has coincided with the work educators in the United States have performed to implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [5]. It is a federal law that has the most direct impact on how public schools provide special education services to K-12 students with disabilities. Additionally, it identifies a second group of struggling students who are to be provided support services using the law’s accompanying federal funding. They are students who need academic or behavioral supports, referred to as early intervening services (EIS), to be successful in the general education curriculum and avoid more costly special education services [6].

Since the IDEA’s passage, educators have vacillated between approaches that (a) focused on determining, in an isolated manner, how to configure appropriate highly individualized services for struggling students versus (b) how instruction could be routinely and systematically reconfigured across a school so that only a very small percentage of students struggled to the point of needing individualized, remedial instruction [7]. This vacillation is attributable to several factors, including the eligibility criteria for special education services, the creation of a dual service delivery system, imprecise knowledge about teaching reading, and philosophical differences.

Since its passage in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the IDEA has set forth a two-part eligibility criterion for identifying students who could receive special education services. One part involved the student meeting the established criteria for one or more of the law’s categories of disability (e.g., intellectual disability, autism, specific learning disability). The second part was establishing that the disability adversely affected the student’s educational performance, thereby necessitating the provision of special education services [8].

An early criticism of this categorical approach, which continues to this day, is its focus on a student’s disability more than the quality of the instruction they receive [9]. That is to say, the eligibility criteria imply that the student’s lackluster educational performance is the result of an inherent disability when, in fact, that performance may be the result of poor instruction. With a disability focus, specialized instruction was configured to address the disability’s features outside of the school’s general education programming. An example involved instruction designed to address the basic psychological processes underlying a student’s specific learning disability instead of directly teaching foundational academic skills [10].

Another early problem that emerged was the development of a dual educational system where specially trained teachers were employed to present instruction to students with disabilities that was distinct from that provided in the general education classroom. One reason for this arrangement was that funding mechanisms ensured that hard-fought-for resources were dedicated to students with disabilities [7].

Consequently, the origins of today’s MTSS can be traced to the late 1980s with calls for the elimination of the dual educational system by focusing on ways to present high-quality instruction to all students in a general education classroom [11,12]. The students who demonstrated noteworthy learning challenges would be identified for highly individualized instruction, and concerted efforts would be made to ensure that it was connected to the general education classroom instruction and core curriculum.

This concept gained traction in the late 1990s and early 2000s as reports that synthesized the research on how students learn to read and resulting federal initiatives furthered the conceptualization of schoolwide models of support [13]. These became integrated with similar, emerging models for addressing students’ engagement in proper school social behaviors [14]. Educators acknowledged the merits of connecting them, as research established a correlation between some students’ difficulties learning to read and their engagement in disruptive, inappropriate behavior [15].

One model that gained particular prominence with respect to reading instruction was response to intervention (RTI), which was identified in the IDEA [5]. At the same time, early intervening services (EIS) were established in the law. RTI and EIS were highlighted simultaneously to get schools to focus more than they had on the quality of their general education reading instruction for all students. If students learned to read, the number of students found eligible to receive special education services would be significantly reduced because the primary reason students were identified with a specific learning disability (SLD) was due to a reading difficulty. At that time, about half of all students receiving special education services were identified with an SLD. Additionally, advocates argued that when a student was provided this instruction but still demonstrated a need for special education services, the resulting eligibility determination would be valid [1].

Unfortunately, this approach resulted in RTI being considered a formal process for identifying students who were eligible to receive special education services, more so than a mechanism for schoolwide instructional improvement. Put another way, it was regarded as a refined pathway to special education eligibility [7].

Yet, this unintended outcome did not spell the end for MTSS efforts. Instead, the MTSS framework evolved and gained traction through state and federal efforts, often buoyed by full inclusion advocates who insisted on the acceptance of their philosophy regarding the merits of keeping all students in a general education classroom with appropriate services and supports provided to deserving students [16]. Data indicate that all 50 states provide guidance about MTSS or mandate its use on their department of education websites [2]. Additionally, the Every Student Succeeds Act, another federal education law, recommends MTSS as an appropriate approach for students with disabilities and English language learners [17]. Furthermore, the concept of a tiered intervention system is reflected in work involving its use beyond the United States.

MTSS has evolved into its present form as educators have begun to catch on to the concepts of system- and student-level factors [18]. System-level factors refer to actions that personnel at the school district, school building, and grade level can take to ensure that high-quality instruction is presented to enable all students to master the general education core curriculum. Student-level factors involve those that can be analyzed to determine how to adapt (i.e., individualize) the high-quality instruction that has not been effective with a particular student. Importantly, student-level factors are considered in concert with, and many times only after, system-level factors are addressed [7]. The MTSS’s design supports this approach. That design is discussed next.

An MTSS comprises an organizational scheme in which a school’s system of interventions is characterized in terms of tiers. The tiers are a categorization scheme for designating the types of interventions and students receiving them. A three-tier framework often serves as the basis for a straightforward explanation of an MTSS. Tier 1 consists of high-quality instruction that is presented in the general education classroom to teach the core curriculum. Tier 2 involves supplemental interventions that are provided to students demonstrating an academic achievement deficit despite the Tier 1 instruction. Tier 1 services should be effective with at least 80 percent of the students, meaning up to 20 percent will receive tier 2 instruction. Tier 3 services are provided to students manifesting significant, persistent academic achievement deficits, and comprise individualized instruction that results from adaptations to the Tier 2 interventions that were less than optimal. About 5 percent of a school’s students will need tier 3 instruction [19].

A noteworthy process that is central to an MTSS is intensifying instruction. It refers to adapting alterable instructional variables to create more individualized instruction that is hypothesized to be more effective than prior instruction [20]. It can occur within and across tiers and highlights how an MTSS is a data-driven framework involving extensive coordination among its components. Yet, researchers have remarked that teachers are not confident in intensifying instruction [21] and have questioned schools’ commitments to it [22].

Hence, while MTSS advocates emphasize that it is a mechanism for addressing ongoing school improvement, educators must address three of its most pressing challenges to realize its promise. These challenges include scheduling all needed instruction, using evidence-based practices, and crafting effective and efficient individualized instruction through intensification [7].

Given the numerous components comprising an MTSS, scheduling its activities presents numerous challenges. Two that are closely related include (a) scheduling enough supplemental intervention and (b) doing so such that a student does not miss necessary instruction involving another tier (e.g., a student does not miss Tier 1 instruction while receiving a Tier 2 intervention).

Beginning with high-quality instruction in Tier 1, schools are to use evidence-based practices throughout an MTSS [22]. Hence, many evidence-based reviews have identified these practices, which are proven effective in teaching students targeted learning outcomes [23,24,25,26]. One such practice is a systematic instructional approach, which is appropriate for all tiers. While schools were figuring out, over the past 50 years, how to design and operate an all-encompassing, integrated service delivery system that accounts for all students, research has demonstrated systematic instruction’s effectiveness [27,28]. While the approach is effective for all students, it is a necessity for students demonstrating learning challenges [29]. Hence, school personnel must be cognizant of how it can be used throughout an MTSS framework.

Furthermore, systematic instruction is well-suited to intensifying instruction. Its proper intensification can address the third MTSS challenge: crafting effective and efficient individualized instruction. In particular, systematic instruction presented in brief lessons offers one way for ensuring that it is employed throughout an MTSS and assists schools in refining their MTSS scheme for meeting the never-ending challenges of providing effective and efficient instruction to all struggling students.

A recent example involves “short burst lessons” that have been effective in teaching kindergarten and first-grade students foundational reading and mathematics skills [30,31]. Reportedly, they are 5–7-min, scripted sessions presented in a one-on-one arrangement while classmates are engaged in small group or independent work during the general education classrooms’ literacy block. Afterwards, the student independently completes computer-based instruction involving the same skill. Hence, the lessons function as supportive, Tier 1 services.

Likewise, research has established the effectiveness of short-duration lessons with lower elementary and high school students [32]. The supplemental lessons, lasting 5–10 min, involved a systematic instruction approach presented in a one-on-one or small group (i.e., three students) format. The students included ones requiring early intervening, Tier 2 services, and students with disabilities receiving Tier 3 services. Skills taught included naming numerals, reading high-frequency words, decoding vowel-consonant and consonant-vowel-consonant words, solving addition and subtraction basic facts, plus reading and defining mathematics vocabulary.

These lessons contribute to an understanding that every resource must be examined regarding how it can be employed to make an MTSS effective [7]. At a minimum, the approach comprises examining how all school staff can present some type of reading instruction. Similarly, short lessons comprise the consideration of how to use another valuable resource: time. Within an MTSS, schools must identify how every available minute can be used to present instruction, and how the instruction can be configured so that it is effective and efficient. Moreover, an examination of how short, daily lessons accumulate across a school year (e.g., 10 min daily across 180 school days amounts to 30 h of instruction) will likely convince educators that they must be mindful of this resource.

2. Applications of Systematic Instruction in Brief Lessons

Overall, the problems that systematic instruction in brief lessons solves are (a) some students’ need for increased practice and (b) teachers seeking a way to increase the amount of effective, appropriate intensive intervention they provide [21,33,34]. Therefore, designing and implementing these lessons involves work in three areas: the identification of brief periods of time when instruction can be presented but has not been; the proper application of an evidence-based practice during this time; and crafting more individualized instruction for students requiring early intervening services and students demonstrating persistent, significant academic achievement deficits through intensifying the evidence-based practice. The latter group includes students with disabilities who receive special education services.

2.1. Identifying Brief Periods of Time

Arguably, the time allotted for instruction is a school’s most valuable commodity. It sets a limit for content that can be taught. Consequently, schools are challenged to create master schedules that adequately account for all MTSS activities [7]. Two closely related challenges are (a) scheduling enough supplemental intervention and (b) doing so such that a student does not miss necessary instruction involving another tier (e.g., a student does not miss Tier 1 instruction while receiving Tier 2 services). Altogether, these challenges confront educators’ goals to maximize every student’s engaged and academic learning time [29,35].

One solution to these two challenges is identifying brief periods that have not been regarded as instructional minutes in the master school schedule but could be used for this purpose [34]. Opportunities for brief periods of instruction include

• the start and end of the school day when students are in the classroom, waiting for the beginning of the first official activity on the master schedule or a call to leave school (e.g., board a bus);
• transition periods between and within lessons;
• near the end of the allocated time for an activity that the student completes early (e.g., the student finishes her lunch 10 min before the lunch period ends) or else the scheduled activity is completed early unexpectedly (e.g., a mathematics lesson is completed 5 min before the period ends);
• time that becomes available unexpectedly (e.g., the music lesson is canceled because the teacher went home sick);
• while non-academic tasks are being attended to (e.g., in the hallway while classmates are completing a restroom break); and
• as part of a scheduled activity (e.g., the teacher completes a brief lesson at the table where she is leading small groups during the class’s literacy block; the brief lesson occurs as one group leaves and another enters quietly).

2.2. Applying a Systematic Approach

Once brief periods for presenting supplemental instruction have been identified, they must be configured for the presentation of effective instruction. Since the lessons will be presented to students demonstrating various learning challenges within and across tiers, a preferred instructional approach is one supported by evidence of universal effectiveness. Systematic instruction is one such approach, as it has proven effective across students of various ages and content areas [36,37,38,39]. Moreover, it has proven to be especially effective with students with disabilities and those at-risk and demonstrating learning challenges, resulting in Archer and Hughes remarking that it should be the default approach employed by these students’ instructors [29].

Systematic instruction comprises planned, methodical approaches that are easily replicable. Two that are well-suited for brief lessons are explicit instruction and systematic trial-based instruction, which includes response prompting strategies and discrete trial teaching [40,41,42]. They can be used independently, or a lesson can involve an explicit instruction approach with a systematic trial-based procedure embedded.

Explicit instruction has been characterized as a teacher-directed, intentional approach comprising research-supported instructional behaviors [29,41]. Archer and Hughes explained the approach in terms of four categories of attributes: content, design of instruction, delivery of instruction, and practice [29]. Content refers to the curriculum that will be taught. Critical features include a focus on critical content, presenting the content in small steps identified through a task analysis, and sequencing the content to account for things like prerequisite and high probability skills. The design of instruction ensures it is organized, with an opening, body, and closing. Essential elements are a clear statement of the learning objective, teacher modeling with a think-aloud, guided practice via the use of prompts that are methodically faded, and a professional lesson summary plus independent work.

The delivery of instruction includes frequent opportunities for active student responding, followed immediately by affirmative or informative, corrective feedback. Similarly, the teacher presents checks for understanding, which function as formative assessments that the teacher uses to adjust how she proceeds with the instruction. The teacher maintains a brisk pace so that students remain on task and are constantly cognitively processing the content taught. Lastly, various types of practice are used strategically to address the student’s phase of learning [43,44].

Deliberate practice is presented as a student acquires a skill. The instructor models small steps comprising the task and then presents opportunities for the student to respond, followed by the immediate presentation of behavior-specific feedback. Subsequently, various practice strategies are used when students must develop fluency and maintain their skill acquisition:

• spaced (practice is presented over time);
• cumulative (all mastered skills are addressed across practice sessions);
• retrieval (students must pull learned content from memory); and
• interleaved (practice that requires the student to compare and contrast differing items).

Systematic trial-based instruction involves four components: a task directive, student response, response contingency, and an inter-trial interval [42,45,46]. For example, to teach naming lowercase letters, a teacher would hold up an index card with a letter printed on it and present the task directive, “Name this letter.” The teacher would wait up to four seconds for the student to make a correct response, and then follow it with affirmative praise. If the student did not respond or responded incorrectly, the teacher would provide corrective feedback and prompt a correct response by modeling the letter’s name. In either instance, in the short time following the feedback, the teacher and student would prepare for the next trial.

This instruction has proven effective in teaching academic and functional content [26,40,47]. Yet, both types of this instruction—response prompting procedures (e.g., constant time delay, simultaneous prompting) and discrete trial teaching—are well-suited for soliciting active student responding during the practice component within an explicit instruction approach. This circumstance addresses the need for students demonstrating learning challenges to engage in significantly more practice than their peers who are performing at or above grade-level and demonstrating expected rates of improvement. Gersten and his colleagues remarked that students manifesting learning challenges need 10–30 more practice opportunities to master a skill than their peers who demonstrate typical achievement [33].

Table 1. A brief lesson comprising a systematic instructional approach to teach the most common sounds for the letters f and s.

Systematic Instruction: Components Plus Teacher and Student Activities	Systematic Instruction Attributes
Opening The teacher secures the student’s attention by saying, “Eyes on me.” When the student looks at the teacher, she tells him that he will learn to say the most common sound represented by the lowercase letters f and s. The teacher reminds the student that he has learned the most common sounds for the letters a and m. She then shows him separate index cards with both letters (i.e., a and m) and directs him to say the most common sound they stand for. Next, she explains that learning letter sounds will equip the student with the skills he needs to read words, such as mat and mad. She then shows, sounds out, and reads the words.	- Presentation of an attention directive - Statement of the lesson’s learning objective - Connects the new content with the student’s existing knowledge network - Retrieval practice - Rationale for the lesson
Body The teacher tells the student she will show him how to perform the new skill. The teacher presents an index card with the letter f and models with a think-aloud the four-step process for ensuring that the student identifies the correct letter and its most common sound: (a) look at the letter’s unique features (e.g., a tall line with a hook at the top facing right and a short line across the middle), (b) say the letter’s name, (c) think about the sound that I make when I see the letter, then (d) say the sound. The teacher demonstrates this four-step process two times for each letter. Next, the teacher informs the student that he will perform the skill with her help so that he does so correctly. She shows the student the letter f and prompts him to perform the first three steps by slowly saying, “Look at it, Say its name, and Think of the sound I said.” Then, the teacher uses simultaneous prompting to enable the student to perform the last step correctly. Specifically, the teacher says the letter sound, which the student repeats. The teacher ends the trial by presenting affirmative, behavior-specific praise (e.g., “Correct. /f/ is the sound that the letter f stands for.”) She presents three trials for each letter, f and s, randomly. The teacher uses the constant time delay procedure to see if the student can autonomously perform the skill. First, she gets the student’s attention and tells him that she wants him to do his best to say each letter’s sound by himself. Yet, she tells him that she will help him if he really needs it. Specifically, she informs him that if he does not know a letter sound, wait for a few seconds, and she will demonstrate it. She presents a letter and allows the student four seconds to say its sound. The teacher presents affirmative, behavior-specific praise for correct responses within the four-second response interval. If the student responds incorrectly, the teacher says “No” and then presents a trial with simultaneous prompting: the teacher presents the letter and task directive (“Say its sound”), then immediately presents the prompt, which is the letter sound. When the student responds correctly, the teacher would simply confirm the correct response (e.g., say, “Yes”) as a way of differentially reinforcing independent correct responding versus correct responding with error correction. If the student does not make a response during the four-second delay interval, the teacher says, “Good waiting,” then conducts a simultaneous prompting trial. The teacher repeats the previous step three times for each letter randomly. The teacher tells the student that he will review the letters a and m while getting a chance to show how well he has learned the letter sounds for the two new letters: f and s. She emphasizes that she will show each letter and give him two seconds to respond. She also emphasizes that she will help him if he needs it, by confirming correct responses and prompting incorrect ones. She presents the letters two times each randomly.	- Teacher demonstration with a think-aloud and repeated demonstrations - Guided practice via a response prompting procedure: simultaneous prompting. Includes immediate, behavior-specific feedback and massed practice - Transition from guided to independent practice. Involves a type of formative assessment via a response prompting procedure: Constant time delay. Includes affirmative feedback for correct responding, and informative, corrective feedback for incorrect responding - Multiple opportunities to respond with active student responses - Interleaved retrieval practice that also serves as a check for understanding/formative assessment
Closing To initiate the closing, the teacher secures the student’s attention by saying, “Look at me.” She restates the learning objective. Next, she reviews the details of the lesson’s modeling and practice activities. She tells the student that the next time they get together to learn this skill, they will repeat this lesson.	- Structured, professional closing beginning with an attention directive - Restatement of the lesson’s learning objective - Discussion of the learning objective within the context of the lesson’s activities - Preview of the next related lesson

presents a brief lesson involving systematic instruction to teach a student the most common speech sound encoded by a lowercase letter. The components are identified in the left-hand column. The teacher and student activities comprising the components are numbered underneath. In the right-hand column, the instructional feature that directly corresponds to each activity is numbered the same (e.g., in the opening, the teacher saying “Eyes on me” is an attention directive for securing the student’s attention).

The teacher may decide to assign independent work in the closing if the student demonstrates a high rate of correct responding during the check for understanding. An example of independent work would be the teacher showing each letter card and the student saying its letter sound, followed by affirmative or informative, corrective feedback. This arrangement mirrors an assessment for the purpose of determining if the student has mastered the task. However, it differs from a mastery assessment in one key respect, which is the feedback presented. It would not be presented during a mastery assessment. That assessment’s feedback would involve praise for following directions or putting forth appropriate effort instead of content that informs the student about correct responding.

2.3. Intensifying Instruction

Within an MTSS framework, suboptimal instruction is adapted via a strategic process known as intensifying instruction. It is a key feature of an MTSS framework for resolving students’ academic achievement deficits. Noteworthy is how the attributes of systematic instruction are well-suited for this process.

Intensifying instruction involves adapting alterable instructional variables to create a more individualized intervention that is hypothesized to be more effective than prior instruction [20]. Examples of changes to alterable variables include

• decreasing the number of students in a group while ensuring that each must learn the same or very similar content;
• increasing the number of opportunities to respond;
• conducting more checks for understanding, or formative assessments, during a lesson;
• adjusting the pace of instruction; and
• presenting smaller amounts of new content.

These variables are among those comprising systematic instruction: identifying critical content that is taught in small chunks, presenting multiple opportunities to respond through guided and independent practice, conducting routine checks for understanding and adjusting instruction in real time, and maintaining a brisk pace [48,49,50].

Decisions for intensifying instruction emerge through data-based individualization (DBI). DBI is an iterative, research-based process that involves establishing a baseline instructional program and subsequently conducting routine progress monitoring assessments (e.g., weekly) [51]. Visual analyses of multiple data points (i.e., 4–6) indicating that a student is showing an insufficient rate of improvement for mastering a targeted learning objective serve as the basis for intensifying instruction. Afterwards, the new intervention is implemented, and routine progress monitoring continues. The DBI process either results in establishing an effective intervention or supports the continuous examination and refinement of a student’s instruction.

Together, brief lessons and systematic instruction address educators’ concerns about not being able to present enough intensive instruction [21,34]. Their concerns are two-fold: not having the time to present it to as many students needing it and not knowing how to intensify instruction when a standard program proves ineffective. Brief lessons present opportunities for increasing the number of students who receive intensive interventions. Presenting systematic instruction during the lessons establishes an evidence-based approach that educators who understand its structure can intensify easily. Furthermore, the lessons can be structured appropriately for every MTSS tier.

This approach highlights how systematic instruction can establish equality and equity [52]. It establishes equality by giving every student an opportunity to receive effective instruction. It establishes equity through the intensification process that individualizes the instruction. Importantly, establishing equity involves accounting for systemic barriers (e.g., differential resources, variations in teacher preparation and retention) to ensure just outcomes. Additionally, educators must consider how culturally and linguistically responsive MTSS can enable them to determine the ways to intensify instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students based on their circumstances [53]. Educators can ensure equality of opportunity by considering every student as a possible recipient of this instruction, then use a data-based decision-making process to determine which students have received what they needed, and which students need more. That is to say, the brief lessons can be part of the additional instruction a student needs. This perspective differs from concluding that some students are not candidates for any brief lessons because there is a high probability they will need something more [30,31].

Conversely, schools must avoid the risk of employing brief lessons involving systematic instruction as the solution to the challenge of providing large numbers of students with some type of intensive intervention. Ultimately, the outcome could be that many students do not get what they need. In other words, unthoughtful overuse of the lessons will likely result in a watered-down approach that puts further strains on an intervention system whose effectiveness depends on the strategic use of every available resource. The brief lessons must comprise targeted, data-based instruction to be maximally effective and efficient, and truly useful.

3. Conclusions and Prospects

Now that the MTSS framework has gained widespread acceptance, schools must refine their systems of interventions to realize the framework’s promise. Critical is an understanding that intensified interventions complement the system-level approach that is the primary driver of an MTSS. Highly effective Tier 1 instruction will limit the number of students needing more intensive Tier 2 and 3 services. Educators can then make student-level decisions for matching the school’s system of interventions to each student’s instructional needs. Research indicates that successful schools strategically employ every resource to realize this outcome. Brief lessons involving a systematic instructional approach are one resource educators can use to manage all their allotted time, which is among their most valuable resources.