By Pascal Lefebvre, Ph.D.
The Challenge of Learner Diversity
Teaching today can be a major challenge for educators due to the diversity of learners. This diversity, which can be linguistic, cultural or socioeconomic in nature, results in more heterogeneous learner profiles. In addition, policies on inclusive education ensure that the right to learn of all students is recognized, including students with disabilities associated with developmental disorders, such as learning disabilities (LDs), autism spectrum disorders or communication disorders. All schools must therefore put in place differentiated instruction strategies to enable these students to develop to their full potential at school.
This diversity among students is not new, and the COVID-19 pandemic has magnified this phenomenon by creating even more pronounced disparities within groups of children of the same age. According to recent studies carried out on this subject (Bates et al., 2020; Hammerstein et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Monnier et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2020), the disruptions that students have experienced in their education, physical activities, and opportunities to socialize have affected their learning, behaviour, mental health and socialization. In short, the already existing gaps between students have deepened, and teachers must contend with a more diverse population of learners than ever before.
This reality can weigh heavily on the shoulders of teachers, as shown by the alarming data on recruitment and retention difficulties, the high rate of occupational burnout and the increasingly chronic shortage of teachers (Working Group on Teacher Shortage in the French-Language School System in Ontario, 2021; Wilson, 2021). Therefore, schools need to rethink how they operate in order to allow for greater utilization of the expertise of their different practitioners and thus better support teachers in their work on a daily basis and, by the same token, provide more inclusive education for all.
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Inclusive Schools
One of the solutions available to schools to better respond to the diversity of learners and to reduce the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on student learning and well-being is to implement multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS; Cusumano et al. 2014; Wyse et al., 2020). Such systems have been in existence for over a decade in North American schools and offer an organizational framework for prevention in the various areas of learning (e.g., response to interventions) as well as behaviour and mental health (e.g., positive behaviour support) (Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, 2022). These MTSS include the following essential components:
- a multi-level prevention-based instruction and intervention system,
- data collection during student screening and progress monitoring, and
- decision making based on several data sources
(Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, 2022).
These MTSS components are implemented primarily by collaborative teams that leverage varied expertise.
Originally, MTSS provided a useful alternative to the category-based and sometimes stigmatizing approach used to identify students with special needs. Traditionally, with regard to learning, batteries of static assessment were used to confirm the presence of a disorder in students through a rather simple process: highlighting a gap between the students’ cognitive potential and their academic performance. This normative approach for identifying struggling students did not take into account the diversity of their experiences and the instruction that they had received, which could explain certain learning difficulties at school. This identification approach adopted a rigid view of behavioural, emotional and learning difficulties by situating the problem within the child without examining their educational environment very closely.
MTSS have contributed to reframing problems related to adjustment difficulties and learning by representing them instead as educational practices that are poorly adapted to the needs of students experiencing such difficulties. In other words, the problem does not lie within the child, but rather in the adequacy of educational practices used to meet the student’s needs. By using the principles of differentiated instruction, schools can thus put in place inclusive practices that promote the learning and well-being of all students.
Essential Components of MTSS and Differentiated Instruction
In the MTSS, differentiated instruction is at the heart of the Education for All movement (Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, 2022). Differentiated instruction is a flexible form of instruction that allows educators to vary the content, structures, processes and products of learning (Bénard et al., 2005). This level of differentiated instruction is necessary to respond to the diversity of needs frequently encountered among the students in a classroom. One way to use flexible instruction in the classroom with all students on a daily basis is to apply the strategies of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018). According to the principles of Universal Design for Learning, teachers need to provide students with a number of ways to get involved, represent their knowledge and skills to themselves, act, and express themselves.
These basic differentiated instruction strategies are one of the pillars of Tier 1 of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and should meet the needs of approximately 80% of students in a classroom. In reality, some students simply need intensified support compared to what is being provided in class. This intensified support usually takes place in a smaller group and is adjusted to the zone of proximal development of the students in question. For Tier 2, differentiated instruction strategies thus need to be implemented in terms of structure and content, to provide the additional help needed by these few students.
A minority of students have more specific needs related to developmental disabilities. These students usually need more specialized interventions at Tier 3 of the MTSS. This tier allows for a more individualized approach, which is different from Tier 2 intensified support. The Tier 3 approach requires a deeper understanding of how the student functions, therefore, more in-depth additional assessments are carried out by specialists, such as psychologists, speech-language pathologists, or social workers. These assessments are usually accompanied by an individualized intervention as well as by more specialized differentiated instruction strategies: accommodations and modifications (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2004). Accommodations include teaching and assessment strategies, resources and individualized equipment (such as assistive technology) required by students to enable them to learn and demonstrate their learning, without the curriculum expectations being modified. As for modifications, these are changes made to the curriculum expectations for the student’s grade level in order to meet their learning needs.
According to MTSS principles, all students should benefit from Tier 1 supports in addition to the extra tiers of support that they receive. In other words, the accommodation and modification strategies used for a student need to take place daily in the classroom, even if the student participates in additional intervention activities. For obvious reasons, these more individualized differentiated instruction strategies should not be implemented for all students. In fact, accommodations and modifications are differentiated instruction strategies that the other students do not need to succeed, contrary to the student for whom they were prescribed.
Limitations of MTSS for Inclusive Schools
Although MTSS are intended to be inclusive, the approach used to implement them can bring about a return to a category-based and stigmatizing approach that situates the problems within the child (King et Coughlin, 2016). For example, while the implementation of an MTSS is based on the adoption and strict implementation of research-validated Tier 1 teaching programs and Tier 2 and 3 intervention programs, a school might not call these programs into question when a child is having difficulties. The logic is as follows: if these programs are not helping the child to succeed, the problem is then attributed once again to the child, given that these programs are recognized as being effective and, consequently, cannot be called into question. This type of MTSS could thus adversely affect inclusive practices in a school (King & Coughlin, 2016).
Policies and practices that are informed by research in education (Brown, 2017) are more in line with an MTSS that is based on problem-solving by a collaborative team. With this approach, the decisions made about Tier 1 teaching methods and Tier 2 and 3 interventions must take into account research-validated programs but should also allow for a more adapted and flexible application of their principles based on the data associated with the reality of the students, staff, and school.
Collaboration Aimed at Enhancing MTSS and Inclusive Education
Collaborative work thus enables informed decision-making regarding each of the components of MTSS. One of the most effective ways to accomplish this is to create learning communities led by collaborative teams (Leclerc, 2012). Within these teams, the various relevant data is taken into consideration, including information pertaining to research, the students, the staff, and school resources, in order to come up with the best possible solutions to ensure the student’s well-being and success.
One of the most important aspects of this collaborative decision-making is to determine how to provide support services to struggling students. Essentially, student services can take two forms: direct or indirect services (Suleman et al., 2014). Direct services are provided directly to struggling or at-risk students, either within or outside of their classroom group. Indirect services, on the other hand, take the form of consultations, coaching, mentoring or supervision by a specialist to enable educators to better help struggling students. There are scientific data to support both types of services and also hybrid models of these two types (e.g., Archibald, 2017; Cirrin et al., 2010).
Co-teaching is a direct service modality whereby instruction can be delivered jointly in the same classroom by bringing together two or more practitioners with different fields of expertise. This modality is recommended to better serve diverse groups of students, including those with special needs. The effectiveness of co-teaching is known to improve and accelerate the academic performance of students with developmental disorders or students who are learning the language of instruction (Hang & Rabren, 2009; Pardini, 2006; Walsh, 2012). In its “pure” form, co-teaching requires two practitioners, often a generalist teacher and a specialist, to work in the classroom almost every day in order to comply with the parity principle. In reality, this requirement can rarely be applied in regular schools, as opposed to specialized schools where specialists can dedicate more time to the same classroom group. In addition, under education and health regulations, only one qualified teacher can provide in-class instruction. Therefore, co-teaching usually takes the form of a co-intervention involving the generalist classroom teacher and a specialist over a limited time period. This modality can thus be used more for coaching. During the co-intervention, the specialist can model strategies for the generalist teacher, while at the same time learning more about the actual context and the activities proposed in class.
Co-teaching is a service modality that enhances the effectiveness of MTSS Tiers 1 and 2. There are several models of this service modality. Here are the six models proposed by Cook and Friend (2017).
1. One teaching, one observing
With this model, the two practitioners decide in advance which specific types of information are to be collected during the instruction period and which system will be used to collect the information. After the classroom session, the practitioner acting as the teacher and the one acting as the observer jointly analyze the data collected to understand what happened during the class, and they discuss what will have to be changed in the future if a change seems appropriate. This model needs little joint planning and can promote professional development. However, the specialist could be relegated to the role of assistant, which is why the roles must be reversed regularly. In addition, observing requires specific planning to be able to determine the nature of the observations and the recording tool to be used.
2. One teaching, one assisting
With this model, one teacher is in charge of teaching while the other one circulates in the classroom to monitor the student’s progress and to help them if needed. Over time, the two teachers share the roles and responsibilities of working with the students, such that the distinction between the generalist and the specialist is not evident. This model requires little joint planning. It can enable the specialists to focus their expertise on particular students, as needed. However, the specialist can become an assistant if the roles are never reversed. The specialist’s presence can be a source of distraction for some students. Lastly, certain students can become dependent learners who wait passively for the specialist to help them.
3. Station teaching
With this model, the practitioners divide the content and the number of students into different stations. There can also be stations where students work independently. Each practitioner then teaches the content for the group at a specific station and repeats the same material for each remaining group, after the groups have rotated between the stations. This model allows for separate planning and different teaching styles. The ratio of students to practitioners is lower, which makes it easier to adjust the teaching and participation of each student. However, this co-teaching model can be noisy. It can be disruptive when the students move from one station to another. To avoid this problem, practitioners can move from one station to the next instead of the students doing this. Lastly, practitioners need to pay attention to the sequence of activities at the various stations to ensure that what is taught at one station is not a prerequisite for what is taught at the next station.
4. Parallel teaching
With this model, the classroom group is divided into two, and both practitioners teach the same material simultaneously to one-half of the classroom group. The ratio of students to workers is, therefore, lower and allows for greater student participation and better differentiated instruction. This model can even make it possible to present opposing points of view on the same subject. However, practitioners must ensure that the same content is covered in both groups, which can mean that this model might not be the most appropriate for the initial instruction session.
5. Alternative teaching
With this co-teaching model, one practitioner takes charge of the larger group while the other works with a smaller group with a specific pedagogical goal in mind, such as pre-teaching, re-teaching, enrichment, or assessment. This model, therefore, provides intensified support in the classroom. However, it may stigmatize students who need specialized help if they are grouped together several times in the same way. In addition, the practitioners need to rotate the roles so that they avoid replicating an out-of-class model in a corner of the classroom.
6. Team teaching (complementary or otherwise)
The best-known model, but also the most difficult one to implement, is one in which the practitioners share the planning and teaching responsibilities while playing an equally active role in classroom management. The two practitioners are then actively engaged in delivering core instruction. Team teaching can also enhance the complementary nature of the practitioners’ expertise by ensuring that basic instruction is provided by the generalist teacher and that the more specialized interventions are provided by the specialist. Team teaching is known as being very energizing and innovative for the practitioners. It also provides collaborative behaviour models for students and clearly communicates the equity status of the different practitioners. However, it requires the highest level of mutual trust, engagement, and communication. This co-teaching model requires the practitioners to be very compatible and calls on them to be highly flexible.
Conclusion
In short, the variety of collaborative models provides a range of service modalities that can enhance the effectiveness of MTSS to better meet the specific needs of diverse learners. These models can even be hybrid, combining the characteristics of many of the models presented in this article. Good knowledge of these models can lead to better informed discussions and can help to resolve problems more effectively regarding the organization of support services in schools.
References
Archibald, L. M. D. (2017). SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2, 1-17.
Bates, L. C., Zieff, G., Stanford, K., Moore, J. B., Kerr, Z. Y., Hanson, E. D., … & Stoner, L. (2020). COVID-19 impact on behaviors across the 24-hour day in children and adolescents: physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep. Children, 7(9), 138.
Bénard, C., Bisson, L., Bourgignon, R., Cadieux, A., Enright, M., Groulx, M., … & Tissot, J. (2005). La différenciation pédagogique: théories et applications. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport.
Brown, C. (2017). Achieving evidence informed policy and practice in education: Evidenced. Emerald.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (2022). Essential Components of MTSS. National Institutes of Research. https://mtss4success.org/essential-components
Cirrin, F. M., Schooling, T. L., Nelson, N. W., Diehl, S. F., Flynn, P. F., Staskowski, M., Torrey, T. Z., & Adamczyk, D. F. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 223–264.
Cusumano, D. L., Algozzine, K., & Algozzine, B. (2014). Multi-tiered system of supports for effective inclusion in elementary schools. In J. McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine, Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools. Research and Practice (pp.197-209), Routledge.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (8th ed.). Pearson.
Hammerstein, S., König, C., Dreisörner, T., & Frey, A. (2021). Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 4020.
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268.
King, D., & Coughlin, P. K. (2016). Looking beyond RTI standard treatment approach: It’s not too late to embrace the problem-solving approach. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(3), 244-251.
Le groupe de travail sur la pénurie des enseignantes et enseignants dans le système d’éducation de langue française en Ontario (2021). Rapport sur la pénurie des enseignantes et enseignants dans le système d’éducation de langue française en Ontario, Ontario. https://www.ontario.ca/fr/page/rapport-sur-la-penurie-de-personnel-enseignant-dans-le-systeme-deducation-en-langue-francaise
Leclerc, M. (2012). Communauté d’apprentissage professionnelle. Guide à l’intention des leaders scolaires. PUQ
Liu, Q., Zhou, Y., Xie, X., Xue, Q., Zhu, K., Wan, Z., … & Song, R. (2021). The prevalence of behavioral problems among school-aged children in home quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 412-416
Ministère de l’éducation de l’Ontario. (2004). Plan d’enseignement individualisé (PEI). Guide. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/general/elemsec/speced/guide/resource/iepresguidf.pdf
Monnier, M., Moulin, F., Thierry, X., Vandentorren, S., Côté, S., Barbosa, S., … & Galera, C. (2021). Children’s mental and behavioral health, schooling, and socioeconomic characteristics during school closure in France due to COVID-19: the SAPRIS project. Scientific reports, 11(1), 1-15.
Pardini, P. (2006). In one voice: Mainstream and ELL teachers work side-by-side in the classroom, teaching language through content. Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 20–25.
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.
Singh, S., Roy, D., Sinha, K., Parveen, S., Sharma, G., & Joshi, G. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on mental health of children and adolescents: A narrative review with recommendations. Psychiatry Research, 293, 113429.
Suleman, S., McFarlane, L. A., Pollock, K., Schneider, P., Leroy, C., & Skoczylas, M. (2014). Collaboration: More than” Working Together” An exploratory study to determine effect of interprofessional education on awareness and application of models of specialized service delivery by student speech-language pathologists and teachers. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 37(4), 298-307.
Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(1), 29-36.
Wilson, J. (3 novembre, 2021). Record number of teachers experiencing burnout, Canadian Occupational Safety. https://www.thesafetymag.com/ca/topics/psychological-safety/record-number-of-teachers-experiencing-burnout/315415#:~:text=And%2022.9%20per%20cent%20experienced,likely%20to%20leave%20their%20profession
Wyse, A. E., Stickney, E. M., Butz, D., Beckler, A., & Close, C. N. (2020). The potential impact of COVID-19 on student learning and how schools can respond. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 60-64.
About the Author:
Pascal Lefebvre is a trainer and consultant who combines his field experience with current scientific knowledge in the areas of education, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and prevention in children’s literacy. He is a speech-language pathologist by training and initially practised in health and education settings in Quebec. He then obtained his Ph.D. in the prevention of reading and writing difficulties at Université de Montréal by creating a teaching approach through enriched interactive reading of youth books with Kindergarten students. He worked for over 15 years as a research professor in speech-language pathology programs at the University of Ottawa and Laurentian University in Ontario. He then led research on the development of language and print awareness in young children, as well as on the prevention of reading and writing difficulties, and the implementation of the Response to Intervention model in schools. Pascal Lefebvre is the author of numerous scientific and science popularization works. He has been involved in implementing prevention and inclusivity practices in early childhood education settings and in many Francophone elementary schools in Canada.