Сравнение на методи

	Response to Intervention	Formative Assessment
Област	Education	Education
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Година на възникване	2006	1998
Създател	Special education / school psychology field (Deno; Fuchs & Fuchs; Vaughn)	Scriven (term); Bloom; Black & Wiliam (modern synthesis)
Тип	Tiered framework for screening, intervention, and learning-disability identification	Instructional process using evidence of learning to adapt teaching and feedback
Основополагащ източник	Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.	Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Други названия	RTI, RtI, Multi-Tiered System of Supports, MTSS	Assessment for Learning, Classroom Formative Assessment, Feedback-Based Assessment, Embedded Formative Assessment
Свързани	4	4
Резюме	Response to intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered framework for preventing academic failure and identifying students with learning disabilities by their responsiveness to high-quality instruction. All students are screened and taught with evidence-based core instruction; those who fall behind receive progressively more intensive intervention while their progress is closely monitored. Students who fail to respond even to intensive, well-implemented intervention are flagged as needing further evaluation. RTI reframes disability identification from a static test discrepancy to a dynamic question of who does not respond to good teaching.	Formative assessment, or assessment for learning, is the practice of gathering evidence of student understanding during instruction and using it immediately to adjust teaching and to give feedback that moves learning forward. Unlike summative assessment, which measures learning after the fact for grading or accountability, formative assessment is woven into the teaching cycle. Synthesized influentially by Black and Wiliam, it is defined not by the type of instrument but by whether the resulting evidence actually changes subsequent instruction and learning.