Reading abilities in Swedish students have declined in recent decades. The current study examined the effectiveness of a full-scale three-tier Response to Intervention (RtI) model designed to improve reading skills in Swedish students. Participants were grade 2 students in a primary school setting. A quasi-experimental between-group design was used to examine treatment effects. The RtI experimental group (n = 11) and comparison group (n = 11) were monitored longitudinally over 2.5 years. The interventions included specialized instruction on decoding and reading comprehension. The comparison group received treatment as usual. After the intervention, the number of students in need of support in the experimental RtI-group was reduced from six to one. Furthermore, decoding and reading comprehension improved in the experimental group relative to the comparison group; however, the results were not significant. The standard deviation in the experimental group was smaller than that in the comparison group for all follow-up measures. The intervention effect was sustained after one and a half year in most of the students who had responded to the intervention. In addition, the participating teachers mostly appreciated the RtI-model. These preliminary findings suggest that the RtI model possibly can enhance reading skills in Swedish students; however, more research is needed. Implications for using the RtI model are discussed.

This pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer if K-2 students at risk (Population) for reading impairment benefited from a response to tier 2 reading intervention (Intervention) compared to teaching as usual, (Comparator), on word decoding outcomes (Outcome), based on randomized controlled trials (Study type). Eligibility criteria were adequately sized (N > 30 per group) randomized controlled trials of tier 2 reading interventions within response to intervention targeting K-2 at risk students (percentile 40) compared with teaching as usual (TAU). Reading interventions had to be at least 20 sessions and conducted in a school setting with at least 30 students in each group and containing reading activities. Comparator could not be another intervention. Only decoding tests from Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT) and Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) were included.Information sources: Database search was conducted 2019–05-20 in ERIC, PsycINFO, LLBA, WOS, and additionally in Google Scholar as well as a hand search in previous reviews and meta-analyses. The searches were updated on 2021–03-21. Risk of bias: Studies were assessed with Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2, R-index and funnel plots. A random-effects model was used to analyze the effect sizes (Hedges’ g). Seven studies met the eligibility criteria but only four had sufficient data to extract for the meta-analysis. The weighted mean effect size across the four included studies was Hedges’ g = 0.31, 95% CI [0.12, 0.50] which means that the intervention group improved their decoding ability more than students receiving TAU. A Leave-one-out analysis showed that the weighted effect did not depend on a single study. Students at risk of reading difficulties benefit from tier 2 reading intervention conducted within response to intervention regarding a small effect on the students decoding ability. Only four studies met inclusion criteria and all studies had at least some risk of bias. Tier 2 reading interventions, conducted in small groups within RtI, can to some extent support decoding development as a part of reading factors. 

Some Swedish schools do not identify and support students with reading difficulties efficiently enough during the first years at school. A longitudinal design was used to examine a three-tiered RtI-model for identifying and supporting students at risk of reading difficulties in a Swedish school context. The results demonstrated that the RtI-model could be successfully applied. The proportion of students in need of support (i.e., below the 25th percentile) was significantly reduced after two years. When comparing students receiving RtI-treatment (n =113) with a group of reference students (n =759), students at-risk of reading difficulties in the RtI-group reached the cut-off of the study (i.e., 25th percentile) to a significantly higher degree in word and non-word decoding and reading comprehension in a short text during the post-test at the end of Grade 2 than students in the reference group. The discussion highlights the RtI-model’s strength - “No Child Left Behind”. 

Purpose This article theoretically analyzes how response to intervention (RTI) can be used as a tool in lesson study (LS) to enhance student learning and how RTI can be made more user-friendly by teachers in LS. The focus is on how RTI can be adapted to teachers' daily work by including it in the LS model and how LS can benefit by introducing a scientific approach in analyzing student learning outcomes through RTI. The article also highlights how this approach can contribute to learning for children with special educational needs (SEN). Design/methodology/approach This theoretical paper describes and compares the characteristics of the LS model with the RTI framework. The comparison highlights the design of models related to teachers' development and learning outcomes. The benefits and challenges with the models are described. A previous research study related to the models is also briefly reviewed. Findings There are benefits and challenges with both the RTI and LS models but parts of the models appear to complement one another to some extent. Teachers' professional development and a better control of learning outcomes could be gained by combining the models. This could also lead to educational improvement. Originality/value There has been almost no research about a combined LS and RTI model.