This is an interesting topic. The paper explains how the body of students can affect the results of education in academia. Non-traditional students may have some more incentives, but they may face with challenges including the mismatch between expectations before starting online courses and after enrollment. 

Resolving some critical issues can even make the paper more interesting. A literature review needs to address the methods of searching and filtering for the information. For instance, why the current references were selected among a huge number of papers and articles. There has to be a selection criteria, and author needs to present the details to readers. In addition, exploring and elaborating the search strategies are crucial in the methods section.

Consistency is another aspect within an article, e.g. RtI and RTI.

Some interventions are included in this paper, but readers do not know why they are selected among so many others. Furthermore, there is no conclusion at the end of paper. 

I hope this review can help.

This subject of this paper intrigues me.

In addition to what was said in the previous post, when I read the essay I expected to hear a little more on the profile of the student needing retention. Typically, these would be adult students, as mentioned in the abstract, but minimal attention develops in the body of the article.

What correlation is there in the article for the "adult" online student when the RTI model developed as a solution to a k-12 issue? Can there be a generalization of these RTI services to the adult e-student? What does the literature say about that?

In the essay, the author mentions the learning style needs of adult learners.  It may be helpful to cite statistics on the current data on online learning breakdown including the following types of learning:

• asynchronous - text postings
• asynchronous - text plus video recording
• synchronous - Faculty and student participation in Zoom, GoToMeeting, or other visual online classroom
• synchronous - Faculty and student participation - conference calling - live voice communication
• asynchronous - collaborative, co-creation of learning goals and materials
• broken down by undergraduate and graduate levels
• broken down by two- year community college and four-year institutions

Also, defining "adult learner" is important for the discussion.  Different supports are needed for an adult learner progressing directly from highschool to college than for an adult who has returned to college for retooling after a job reduction in force.  There are also different supports needed for first generation minority including Latino and African American students as opposed to students who have other college graduates in their families.  There are underlying generational issues and socio-economic issues related to technology that may hinder the ability of some students to be successful. 

The Response to Intervention (RtI) or Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtII) as it is known in Pennsylvania was primarily developed and implemented for struggling primary and intermediate students.  The use of RtI in secondary schools has only recently begun to gain traction.  While RtI can be used in any discipline, it was developed for literacy skills.  While I agree with the author’s idea of making the supports currently available at the university known to all students and possibly adding supports that would further enhance the educational opportunities for the student, RtI seems out of place at the college level.  The supports that many colleges, including Grand Canyon University, put into place (e.g., writing center, college-specific tutors, mathematical and statistics tutors, library services) provide all students with resources similar to those assigned throughout the RtI process.  Many colleges require students to take remedial classes in specific content (e.g., English, math, chemistry) before or during enrollment in the regular version of these courses based upon placement tests.  Forcing college students to participate in the RtI process would exceed this requirement and require the instructor of a course to develop additional materials within the course for the same amount of credit.  In primary schools, participation in RtI activities are mandatory unless parental descent is obtained.  Part of the college experience is learning to responsibly manage one’s time, resources, and needs.  Understanding what resources are available to the student, as stated in the article, is a crucial part of this process.   But, the ultimate responsibility for being successful in college is appropriately placed on the student.  After all, society and specifically the businesses that hire college graduates expect to hire individuals that are self-sufficient and capable of producing at a high level with minimal supervision. 

The level of detail in the article creates a void as to what RtI at the college level would look like.  Perhaps this is because of the time constraints of the article.  The suggestions of using multiple-intelligences to teach the lesson assumes that online instructors develop the lectures and activities that are used within a course.  These materials are developed to retain consistency from course to course.  Also at the college level, instructors must balance between understanding situations which affect student learning and creating an environment of high expectations.  Learning online takes a tremendous level of discipline and dedication.  Students who struggle with aspect of these characteristics will be less likely to be successful, but other venues of education exist. This is not said to discourage students from participating in online courses, but rather to ensure that the university is able to best meet the needs of the student. 

Although there may be a need for a literature review of this topic, little evidence is provided to convince the reader that this topic is important.  Has a literature review already been published on this topic?  This paper appears to discuss the findings from several articles but there is no discussion about the types of research methods used, the validity of the research findings, the time period analyzed, or the gaps in the literature on this topic.

This paper also needs editorial review for grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, paragraph construction, and overall structure.  For example, the second to last sentence in the "Student Engagement" section is incomplete.  The second sentence in the "Student Services" section is a question.  A semicolon is needed before the word "however". 

Hopefully, this feedback will be of use to the author in rewriting this paper.

I think the topic is worthy of consideration; however, please consider creating a more compelling argument for the topic.  I think you could achieve this by:

1. Adding more current information instead of the data from 2010.  Try the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov).  There is updated data through 2012.
2. Check to see if there is any data or pilot information available at Universities currently using (RTI) or a similar program for interventions.
3. Consider additional assessment techniques and provide appropriate support.
4. Incorporate more scholarly support and citations that is data driven.
5. Use wording that is more scholarly.  Eliminate phrasing such as, "the hottest idea" and "be-all and end-all".
6. Removing anthromorphisms (These processes will collect data or These interventions focus on...).
7. More consistency in writing (RTI vs RtI; three-tiered vs 3-tiered)

The topic chosen is a good topic to explore and very applicable considering increased focus on graduation rates, persistence, and default rates for Colleges and Universities.  The evidence and data must be more relatable to the population discussed in the writing.  The data should also be relevant.  I hope this feedback helps and I appreciate the opportunity to participate.

First, I enjoyed the ideas presented in your paper and appreciate the opportunity to contribute in some small way to your work. It appears that you did a fair amount of research for your work and have a good grasp of the subject matter.

• Your abstract could use a little work. In your first sentence you said, “This study is a literature review…” A study and a lit review are distinct, so this should be reconsidered as your introductory sentence in the abstract. In addition, you referred to your work as a proposal and as research. Clarification and consistency as to what you are actually doing – writing a proposal or a literature review or doing a study or research – is necessary.
• In the third sentence of the abstract the word ‘profession’ should be plural.
• I would suggest re-writing the abstract. I’m not sure when you wrote it, but I always recommend that people write the paper first and wait until the end to write the abstract. The abstract should be a summary and needs to be concise. For example, in the first sentence you repeated part of your title, something APA specifically says not to ‘waste space repeating the title.’
• Your introduction could use some revisions including correcting some grammatical errors. You have a sentence towards the end of the introduction that says, “It the first class, the first in college that will determine.” This might be a little more refined, “It is the first class during the first year in college that will determine…”
• You make a number of statements that need support from references including your opening sentence. You are also missing a thesis statement.
• You have two in-text citations that are not in the reference section: Allen & Seaman, and Angelo & Cross, and one in which the in-text date does not match the date in the reference section: Brady on pg. 5
• Look in APA on pg. 62 & 63 for proper headings.
• Your running head should be done as a header. Further, ‘RTI’ is written as ‘RtI’ in the running head.
• Sentences in the final paragraph of page 4 that begin with “The RTI model…” and include the next 3-4 sentences seem choppy and could be combined to have better flow. Example: The RTI model consists of three tiers and is often illustrated using a triangle with the base representing the first tier…
• Second sentence under the heading ‘Student Learning – Differential Instructions” on pg. 5 needs to be re-worded. As it stands, it does not make sense. Further down in this paragraph you say, “These resources… would include but are not limited to social media (facebook, skype)…” I encourage you to re-work this sentence. Social media sites are typically capitalized and parenthetical usage is incorrect.
• Watch for consistent comma use throughout your paper, particularly when using lists.
• Paragraph on top of page 6 has sentences that need work. Look at the sentences that begin with, “The challenge for student…” and “Students motivation…”
• Second sentence under “Student Services” is actually a question and might not be needed/appropriate. Your writing here and in other sections of the paper sounds, at times, unscholarly.
• Review both paragraphs under “Classroom Assessment Techniques.” For example, second sentence in first paragraph seems unnecessary and again, unscholarly – sounds like an opinion and is not relevant to the paper.
• Review semi-colon usage and APA format. APA format can be challenging, but learning proper format will save you time in the long run.
• Is your conclusion missing?

I think you have some good ideas here and your topic is intriguing. I commend you on your effort and hope to see more work from you in the future. I hope you find the feedback useful. All the best to you!

After reviewing the tentative paper, please consider the following concerns:

• The introduction includes content making such a bold statement to such an extent that scholarly support is warranted. “…is the most critical time of their education experience”, “…will determine….will continue or not continue..” Evidence of peer-reviewed, scholarly research to support the impact of the first year experiences is warranted to support the introduction to the review and distinguish these from personal statements to validated support.
• The description for RTI programs should include a formal, more thorough introduction into each tier level, describing the components of each stage. Then, applicability to college studies would make a better foundation for the argument for the investigation into RTI strategies at the collegiate level, thus the online program applicability.
• The comments posted which address the timeliness of the references consulted is also a concern, but more specific resources on the topic are necessary as well. Strategies to address student retention in higher education online programs should dominate the reference list. Finally, the summary for online program interventions should be presented in a conclusion section for the paper. An implications section would also suffice, whereas the paper ends quickly within one of the strategies.

The paper presents a great focus which has set the foundation for a much needed investigation into promoting improved success in online academia.

Sylvia,

Can you contact me? I have written a book about RTI on the secondary level (grades 6 - 12) and am willing to bet many of the instructional strategies used in the book could be applied to the collegiate level. Let's chat.

Pam Epler

pepler-brooks@my.gcu.edu