Academic journal article School Psychology Review

Tier 2 Intervention for At-Risk First-Grade Students within a Response-to-Intervention Model of Support

Academic journal article School Psychology Review

Tier 2 Intervention for At-Risk First-Grade Students within a Response-to-Intervention Model of Support

Article excerpt

Clarke et al. (2014) provide a persuasive case for the role of a theory-of-change model to guide the nature of curriculum development work embodying both a theoretical and empirical knowledge foundation. They illuminate the components of their model, which were used to design and test the efficacy of a Tier 2 intervention for students who met their criteria for at-risk identification of mathematics difficulties. Their model of change is well grounded in the research findings regarding effective instructional delivery practices for struggling students, as well as critical mathematical competencies related to foundational concepts and skills, which purportedly are necessary for later mathematics success. Unfortunately, as Clarke et al. (2014) aptly point out, findings from national assessments (e.g., The Nation's Report Card; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013) indicate an alarming rate of poor performance by students who continue to struggle with learning mathematical knowledge. Undoubtedly, a significant number of children demonstrate poor mathematics achievement (Swanson, 2006) that is persistent and pervasive, with long-term problems associated with mathematics difficulties (Geary, 2004; Griffin & Case, 1997).

Recommendations from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) and Frye et al. (2013) underscore the importance of providing early intervention that uses effective instructional practices for at-risk students. For early mathematics interventions, research results are beginning to inform an understanding of the types of instructional practices and intensity of interventions that contribute to mathematics performance. Thus, the report by Clarke et al. (2014) offers the field promising information about a multicomponent intervention for young children who are at risk for mathematics difficulties within a response-to-intervention (RtI) support system. The purpose of this commentary is to expand on the theoretical implications underpinning the Clarke et al. (2014) intervention study by elaborating on key findings and offering additional insights to situate the study in terms of RtI, a theory of change, and future research.

RtI Support System and Mathematics Difficulties

Clarke et al. (2014) frame their intervention work within an RtI system of support. As such, RtI is operationalized through key components, including providing universal screening to all students to identify those who are most in need of preventative intervention, using validated interventions with high-quality levels of fidelity as part of the tiered system of support, and conducting ongoing monitoring of student response to intensive instruction (Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012).

Notably, Clarke et al. (2014) acknowledge the call of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) for "the development and rigorous evaluation of mathematics curricula," which should be inclusive of domains of the Common Core State Standards (2010) for mathematics (CCSSM). Clearly, the availability of evidence-based practices and programs for a tiered mathematics support system is a critical component of RtI and requires more research attention from the field. Clarke et al. (2014) indicate that, on the basis of the "WWC [What Works Clearinghouse] standards for evaluating program effectiveness" (p. X), only four programs could conceivably be integrated into an RtI framework for Tier 1 mathematics instruction; moreover, only two programs (i.e., Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, & Chavez, 2008; Fuchs et al., 2005) suitable for tiered instruction for first graders were identified.

More recently, adding to this list of programs targeting Tier 2 first-grade students with mathematics difficulties is the early numeracy intervention program (Bryant, Pfannenstiel, & Bryant, 2014). Evidence for this program is based on a pretest-posttest control group design; 139 students were randomly assigned to the Tier 2 treatment group and 65 students to the comparison group. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.