Björn Piia M, Aro Mikko, Koponen Tuire, Fuchs Lynn S, Fuchs Douglas
School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland.
Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 5;9:800. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00800. eCollection 2018.
Response to Intervention (RTI) was accepted in the early 2000s as a new framework for identifying learning difficulties (LD) in the U.S. In Finland, a similar multi-tiered framework has existed since 2010. In the present study, these frameworks are presented from the viewpoint of the role of assessment and instruction as expressed in documents that describe the frameworks, as it seems that these two components of RTI are the most disparate between the U.S. and Finland. We present a suggestion for the Finnish framework as an example of support in mathematics learning that incorporates principles of RTI (such as systematized assessment and instruction, cyclic support, and modifiable instruction). Finally, recommendations are presented for further refining and developing assessment and instruction policies in the two countries.
回应干预（RTI）在21世纪初被美国接纳为识别学习困难（LD）的新框架。在芬兰，自2010年以来就存在类似的多层次框架。在本研究中，这些框架是从评估和教学的作用角度呈现的，这是根据描述这些框架的文件中所表达的内容，因为RTI的这两个组成部分在美国和芬兰之间似乎差异最大。我们针对芬兰框架提出了一个建议，作为数学学习支持的示例，该示例纳入了RTI的原则（如系统化评估和教学、循环支持以及可调整教学）。最后，针对进一步完善和发展两国的评估与教学政策提出了建议。
