The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a Tier 2 supplemental intervention focused on rational number equivalency concepts and applications on the mathematics performance of third-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties. The researcher used a pretest–posttest control group design and random assignment of 19 participants to core instruction and 19 participants to core + intervention instruction. Intervention instruction included the ratio interpretation of rational number in conjunction with explicit and conceptual instructional components—judicious review opportunities, concrete and visual representations, systematic task progression focused on big ideas, teacher and student verbalizations, and multiple opportunities for practice—to deliver a sequence of 20 intervention sessions over a period of 4 weeks. Students receiving core instruction plus intervention outperformed those receiving only core instruction on a standard measure of the intervention content as well as a pretest–posttest measure reflective of the core curriculum.
BattistaM. T.BorrowC. (1995, October).A proposed constructive itinerary from iterating composite units to ratio and proportion concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.
2.
BehrM.PostT. R.SilverE. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In LeshR.LandauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
BorgW. R.GallM. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
4.
BriganceA. H. (1999). Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills: Revised. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
5.
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.
6.
CawleyJ. F.MillerJ. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of students with LD: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 250–254, 259.
7.
CharlesR. I.CaldwellJ. H.CrownW. D.FennellF. (2011). Envision mathematics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
CoyneM. D.Kame’enuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analyses program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
11.
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.
12.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Students, 71, 149–165.
13.
GlascoeF. P. (1999). Brigance comprehensive inventory of basic skills-revised (CIBS-R). Diagnostique, 24, 41–51.
14.
GrobeckerB. (2000). Imagery and fractions in students classified as learning disabled. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 23, 157–168. doi:10.2307/1511143
15.
HechtS.VagiK. J.TorgesenJ. K. (2006). Fraction skills and proportional reasoning. In BerchD. B.MazzaccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some students? (pp. 121–132). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
16.
HiebertJ. (2003). What research says about the NCTM Standards. In KilpatrickJ.MartinW. G.SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
17.
KieranT. E. (1993). Rational and fractional numbers: From quotient fields to recursive understanding. In CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 49–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
LewisK. E. (2007, October). Mathematical learning disabilities: An exploratory case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of Nevada, Reno.
19.
MazzoccoM. M. M.DevlinK. (2008). Parts and holes: Gaps in rational number sense among students with vs. without mathematical LD. Developmental Science, 11, 681–691.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
SieglerR.CarpenterT.FennellF.GearyD.LewisJ.OkamotoY. . . . WrayJ. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE #2010-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides
24.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
25.
VanhilleL. S.BaroodyA. J. (2002). Fraction instruction that fosters multiplicative reasoning. In LitwillerB.BrightG. (Eds.), making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions (pp. 224–236). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
