Response to Intervention and Math Instruction

Vanessa Hinton, Margaret M Flores, Margaret Shippen
2.849 687

Abstract


Response to intervention (RTI) is a framework in which interventions are implemented mostly in general education classes to resolve academic difficulties and help to mitigate contextual variables (i.e., lack of instruction, socio economic status, cultural differences, etc.) as an explanation for academic failure. The implementation of evidence-based interventions is very important to the RTI framework. There is limited research regarding RTI and evidence-based interventions in mathematics and young students. For math interventions to be successful in an RTI framework, comprehensive math interventions have to incorporate computation fluency, problem solving, and the use of visual representational simultaneously. Moreover, early instruction in math skills sets the foundation for developing higher order math skills. Therefore, this manuscript reviews the literature regarding math interventions that would apply to early childhood students and are conducive to the RTI model.

Keywords


Mathematics, Response to intervention, Number sense

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)


References


Berch, D.B. (Ed.). (1998, April). Mathematical cognition: From numerical thinking to mathematics education. Conference presented by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD.

Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333 – 339.

Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M.M. (2008) Mathematics interventions for first-and-second-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 20

Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 1Cassel, J., & Reid, R. (1996). Use of self-regulated strategy intervention to improve word problem solving skills of student with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 153-172.

Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.

Denton, C., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 201-211.

Dev, P. C, Doyle, B., A. & Valente, B. (2002). Labels needn't stick: "At-risk" first graders rescued with appropriate intervention. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7, 327-332.

Flores, M. (2009). Teaching subtraction with regrouping to students experiencing difficulty in mathematics. Preventing School Failure, 53, 145-152.

Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teacher subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 195–207.

Fuchs, L., S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 18, 172-183.

Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J.D.,& Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics to first and third grades. Learning disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 13-24.

Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Powell, S. R. (2003). Fact fluency assessment. (Available from L. S. Fuchs, 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203).

Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18-28.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. U.S Department of Education.

Griffin, S. A., Case, R., & Siegler, R. S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisities for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure.In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 25-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, C. A., Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1995). The initial multiplication skills to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(3), 180–195.

Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenburg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority respresentation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances: toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education and Treatment of Children , 29, 779-799.

Ho, C. S., & Cheng, F. S. (1997). Training in place-value concepts improves children’s addition skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 495-506.

Hoover, J., J., & Patton, J., R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School & Clinic, 43, 195-203.

Janssen, F. J., G., Bokhove, J., & Kraemer, J. M. (1992). Leerlingvolgsysteem: Rekentoets medio groep 3 (Student monitoring system: Mathematics 1 for grade 3). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.

Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M.C., Bhat, P., & Riley, T. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 345-355.

Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematical word-problem solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 4224

Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103–119.

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Oláh, 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– 1

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46. Kaffar, B. J., & Miller, S. P. (2011). Investigating the effects of the RENAME Strategy for developing subtraction with regrouping competence among third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Investigations in Math Learning.

Kratochwill, T., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618-631.

Madden, R., Gardner, E.F., & Collins, C. S. (1982). Stanford early school achievement test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Marshall, S. P. (1990), The assessment of schema knowledge for arithmetic story problems: A cognitive science perspective. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Marshall, S. P. (1993), Assessing schema knowledge. In N. Frederikson, R, Mislevy, & I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 155-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mazzocco, M. M., & Thomspon, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 142–155.

Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S.P. (1996). Constructivistic math instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 147-156.

Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 19-35.

Milgram, R. J., & Wu, H. S. (2005). The key topics in a successful math curriculum. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/

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

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (1989). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (6th ed., OLSAT). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Pasnak, R., Hansbarger, A., Dodson, S. L., Hart, J. B., & Blaha, J. (1996). Differential results of instruction of the preoperational/concrete operational transition. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 70-83.

Pasnak, R., Holt, R., Campbell, J. W., & McCutcheon, L. (1991). Cognitive and achievement gains for kindergarteners instructed in Piagetian operations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 5-13.

Pickering, S., & Gathercole, S. (2001). Working Memory Test Battery for Children. London: The Psychological Corporation.

Riley, M. S., Greeno, J.G., & Heller, J.I. (1983). Development of children's problem solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153-196). New York: Academic Press.

Scott, K. S. (1993). Multisensory mathematics for children with mild disabilities. Exceptionality, 4, 97–111.

Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1990). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Sinclair, A., Carin, A., & Tieche-Christinat, C. (1992). Constructing and understanding of place value in numerical notation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7, 191–207.

State Education Research Center. (n.d.). Scientific research-based intsruction and evidence based paractices. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.ctserc.org/rti/rationale/sciencebased.shtml

Van de Rijt, B.A.M., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (1994). The results of different treatments on children’s weak performances in preparatory and initial arithmetic. In J.,E.,H., Van Luit, ed., Research on Learning and Instruction of Mathematics in Kindergarten and Primary School. Doetinchem/Rapallo: Graviant Publishing Company.

Van de Rijt, B. A. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (1998). Effectiveness of the Additional Early Mathematics program for teaching children early mathematics. Instructional Science, 26, 337-358.

Van Luit, J. E. H., Van de Rijt, B. A. M., & Pennings, A. H. (1994). Utrechtse Getalbegrip Toets (Utrecht Test of Number Sense). Doetinchem, The Netherlands: Graviant. [

Van Luit, J. E. H., & Schopman, E. A. M. (2000). Improving early numeracy of young children with special education needs. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 27-40.

Van Luit, J. E. H., & Schopman, E. A. M. (1998). Als special kleuter tel je ook mee! Voobereidende rekenactiviteiten voor kleuters met een ontwlkkelingsachterstand (Young children with special needs count too! Early math mathematics activities for young children with special educational needs.) Doetinchem, The Netherlands: Graviant.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction. The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 18, 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with learning/reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.

Wilkinson, G. S., Stone, M. H., & Jastak, S. (1995). Wide Range Achievement Test- 3. Delaware: Wide Range. Wilson, C. L., & Sindelar, P. T. (1991). Direct instruction in math word problems: Students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 512-519.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.