The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an early numeracy preventative Tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Researchers used a pretest-posttest control group design with randomized assignment of 139 students to the Tier 2 treatment condition and 65 students to the comparison condition. Systematic instruction, visual representations of mathematical concepts, purposeful and meaningful practice opportunities, and frequent progress monitoring were used to develop understanding in early numeracy skills and concepts. Researchers used progress-monitoring measures and a standardized assessment measure to test the effects of the intervention. Findings showed that students in the treatment group outperformed students in the comparison group on the progress-monitoring measures of mathematics performance and the measures that focused on whole-number computation. There were no differences between groups on the problem-solving measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Service, B, 57, 289–300.
2.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR.ScammaccaN.ChavezM. (2008). Mathematics intervention for first- and second-grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of Tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 20–32. doi: 10.1177/0741932507309712.
3.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR.ScammaccaN.FunkC.WinterA.ShihM.PoolC. (2008). The effects of Tier 2 intervention on first-grade mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 47–63. doi: 10.2307/20528817.
4.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.HammillD. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with learning disabilities who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 168–177, 199. doi: 10.1177/002221940003300205.
5.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.WilliamsJ.KimS. A.ShinM. (in press). Strategies for improving student outcomes in mathematics computation. In ChardD.TankersleyM.CookB. (Eds.), Effective practices in special education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
6.
BryantD. P.RobertsG.BryantB. R.DiAndreth-ElkinsL. (2011). Tier 2 for K-2 early numeracy number sense interventions for kindergarten and first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. In GerstenR.Newman-GoncharB. (Eds.), RtI mathematics book (pp. 65–83). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
7.
ChambersJ.ClevelandW.KleinerB.TukeyP. (1983). Graphical methods for data analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole.
8.
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
DehaeneS.DupouxE.MehlerJ. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Homan Perception and Performance, 16, 626–641. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.626.
11.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390050701.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HollenbeckK. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 13–24. doi: 1031111/j.1540-5826.2007.00227.x.
14.
GearyD. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370010201.
15.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009–4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
16.
GerstenR.ChardD.JayanthiM.BakerS.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380040301.
17.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380040301.
LitowL.PumroyD. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341.
20.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
21.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html.
22.
National Research Council. (2009). Mathematic learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
NuerkH. C.KaufmannL.ZoppothS.WillmesK. (2004). On the development of the mental number line: More or less or never holistic with increasing age?Developmental Psychology, 40, 1,199–1,211. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1199.
24.
NuerkH. C.WegerU. W.WillmesK. (2001). Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and unites back into different bins. Cognition, 82, B25–B33. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00142-1.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
ThompsonB. (2002). Statistical, practical, and clinical: How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider?Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64–71.
29.
University of Texas System & Texas Education Agency. (2007a). Texas early mathematics inventories-outcome. Austin, TX: Authors.
30.
University of Texas System & Texas Education Agency. (2007b). Texas early mathematics inventories-progress monitoring. Austin, TX: Authors.
31.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.FletcherJ. M. (2007). Multiple tiers of intervention: A framework for prevention and identification of students with reading/learning disabilities: In TaylorB. M.YsseldykeJ. (Eds.), Educational instruction for struggling readers, K-6 (pp. 173–195). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
32.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WoodruffA. L.Linan-ThompsonS. (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities: A research review of the three-tier model. In HaagerD. H.VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K. (Eds.), Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 11–28). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
33.
WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 269–289. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30035554.
