The Effects of a Tier 3 Intervention on the Mathematics Performance of Second Grade Students With Severe Mathematics Difficulties

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a systematic, explicit, intensive Tier 3 (tertiary) intervention on the mathematics performance of students in second grade with severe mathematics difficulties. A multiple-baseline design across groups of participants showed improved mathematics performance on number and operations concepts and procedures, which are the foundation for later mathematics success. In the previous year, 12 participants had experienced two doses (first and second semesters) of a Tier 2 intervention. In second grade, the participants continued to demonstrate low performance, falling below the 10th percentile on a researcher-designed universal screener and below the 16th percentile on a distal measure, thus qualifying for the intensive intervention. A project interventionist, who met with the students 5 days a week for 10 weeks (9 weeks for one group), conducted the intensive intervention. The intervention employed more intensive instructional design features than the previous Tier 2 secondary instruction, and also included weekly games to reinforce concepts and skills from the lessons. Spring results showed significantly improved mathematics performance (scoring at or above the 25th percentile) for most of the students, thus making them eligible to exit the Tier 3 intervention.

Keywords

intensive intervention number operation algebraic thinking severe mathematics difficulties tertiary intervention Tier 3

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

Gersten

Lee

D.-S.

(2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.

Berch

D. B.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

, (Eds.). (2007). Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Bryant

D. P.

Bryant

B. R.

Gersten

Scammacca

N. N.

Funk

Winter

. . . Pool

(2008). The effects of tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 47–63.

Bryant

D. P.

Bryant

B. R.

Roberts

Vaughn

Pfannestiel

Porterfield

Gersten

(2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7–23.

Butler

F. M.

Miller

S. P.

Crehan

Babbit

Pierce

(2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 99–111.

Butterworth

Reigosa

(2007). Information processing deficits in dyscalculia. In Berch

D. B.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? (pp. 65–83). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Clements

D. H.

(2008). Linking research and curriculum development. In English

L. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 589–625). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Connolly

A. J.

(2008). KeyMath–3. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

10.

Coyne

M. D.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Carnine

D. W.

(2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

11.

Cuillos

SoRelle

Kim

S. A.

Seo

Y. J.

Bryant

B. R.

(2011). Monitoring student response to mathematics intervention: Using data to inform tier 3 intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 120–124.

12.

Doabler

C. T.

Clarke

Fien

Baker

S. K.

Kosty

D. B.

Cary

M. S.

(in press). The science behind curriculum development and evaluation: Taking a design science approach in the production of a Tier 2 mathematics curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly.

13.

Dyson

Jordan

Glutting

(2013). A number sense intervention for urban kindergarteners at risk for mathematics learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 166–181. doi:10.1177/0022219411410233

14.

Fuchs

McMaster

K. L.

Fuchs

Al Otaiba

(2013). Data-based individualization as a means of providing intensive instruction to students with serious learning disorders. In Swanson

H. L.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 526–544). New York, NY: Guilford.

15.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

Paulsen

Bryant

J. D.

Hamlett

C. L.

(2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.

16.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hamlet

C. L.

Powell

S. R.

Capizzi

A. M.

Seethaler

P. M.

(2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475.

17.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Powell

S. R.

Seethaler

P. M.

Cirino

O. T.

Fletcher

J. M.

(2008). Intensive interventions for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.

18.

Fuchs

L. S.

Powell

S. R.

Seethaler

P. M.

Cirino

P. T.

Fletcher

J. M.

Fuchs

Hamlett

C. L.

(2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 89–100.

19.

Geary

D. C.

(1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345–362.

20.

Geary

D. C.

(2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15.

21.

Geary

D. C.

(2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 33, 250–263.

22.

Geary

D. C.

Bailey

D. H.

Littlefield

Wood

Hoard

M. K.

Nugent

(2009). First-grade predictors of mathematical learning disability: A latent class trajectory analysis. Cognitive Development, 34, 411–429.

23.

Geary

D. C.

Hoard

M. K.

Byrd-Craven

Nugent

Numtee

(2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.

24.

Gersten

Beckmann

Clarke

Foegen

Marsh

Star

J. R.

Witzel

(2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/

25.

Gersten

R. M.

Chard

Jayanthi

Baker

S. K.

Morphy

Flojo

(2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431.

26.

Gersten

Jordan

N. C.

Flojo

J. R.

(2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.

27.

Gillis

J. M.

Butler

R. C.

(2007). Social skills interventions for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder: A description of single-subject design studies. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 4, 532–546.

28.

Gliner

J. A.

Morgan

G. A.

(2000). Single subject designs. In Gliner

J. A.

Morgan

G. A.

(Eds.), Research methods in applied settings (pp. 109–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29.

Hallahan

D. P.

(2006, April). Challenges facing the field of learning disabilities. Presentation at the National SEA Conference on SLD Determination, Kansas City, MO.

30.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.

31.

Jordan

N. C.

Hanich

L. B.

Kaplan

(2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850.

32.

Jordan

N. C.

Kaplan

Hanich

L. B.

(2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597.

33.

Jordan

N. C.

Kaplan

D. K.

Olah

L. N.

Locuniak

M. N.

(2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175.

34.

Jordan

N. C.

Kaplan

Ramineni

Locuniak

M. N.

(2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867.

35.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf

36.

Miller

S. P.

Mercer

C. D.

(1993). Using data to learn about concrete–semiconcrete–abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 89–96.

37.

Murphy

M. M.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

Hanich

L. B.

Early

M. C.

(2007). Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematics learning disability (MLD) vary as a function of the cutoff criterion used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 458–478.

38.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). The nation’s report card. A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading mathematics 2011 (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

39.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

40.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2008). Mathematics education in the United States. Reston, VA: Author.

41.

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

42.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

43.

Office of Public Instruction. (2009). Montana response to intervention framework. Helena, MT: Author. Retrieved from http://opi.mt.gov/pub/RTI/Framework/RTIFrameworkGUIDE.pdf

44.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.

45.

Parsonson

Baer

(1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data. In Kratochwill

(Ed.), Single subject research: Strategies for evaluating change (pp. 105–165). New York, NY: Academic Press.

46.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1994). The utility of the PND statistic: A reply to Allison and Gorman. Behavioral Research Therapy, 32, 879–883.

47.

Shinn

M. R.

(2010). Building a scientifically based data system for progress monitoring and universal screening across three tiers including RTI using curriculum-based measurement. In Shinn

M. R.

Walker

H. M.

(Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RTI (pp. 259–292). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

48.

Siegler

R. S.

(2009). Improving the numerical understanding of children from low-income families. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 118–124.

49.

Siegler

R. S.

Shrager

(1984). Strategy choice in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In Sophian

(Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Stanton-Chapman

T. L.

Denning

C. B.

Jamison

K. R.

(2012). Communication skill building in young children with and without disabilities in a preschool classroom. Journal of Special Education, 46, 78–93.

51.

Swanson

H. L.

Hoskyn

Lee

(1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford.

52.

Swanson

H. L.

Jerman

(2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274.

53.

Swanson

H. L.

Sachse-Lee

(2001). Mathematical problem solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294–321.

54.

Sweller

(2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer

(Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

55.

Tawney

J. W.

Gast

D. L.

(1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

56.

Thompson

(2002). “Statistical,” “practical,” and “clinical”: How many kinds of significance to counselors need to consider? Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 64–71.

57.

University of Texas System/Texas Education Agency. (2008a). Texas Early Mathematics Inventory–Progress Monitoring. Austin: Authors.

58.

University of Texas System/Texas Education Agency. (2008b). Texas Early Mathematics Inventory technical manual. Austin: Authors.

59.

University of Texas System/Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas Early Mathematics Inventory–AIM Checks. Austin: Authors.

60.

Vaughn

Wexler

Roberts

Barth

Cirino

Romain

M. A.

. . . Denton

C. A.

(2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391–409.

61.

Wanzek

Vaughn

(2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.

62.

Wolf

M. M.

(1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.