Effects of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Mathematics Interventions for Second Graders with Mathematics Difficulties

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine the effects of Tier 2 and Tier 3 mathematics interventions on students with mathematics learning difficulties. In the first study, the work of Bryant et al. was replicated and expanded upon by documenting the sustained effects of a Tier 2 mathematics intervention on mathematics performance by second graders. In the second study, the Tier 2 intervention was intensified to a Tier 3 intervention through increases in two instructional features: group size and dosage. The results of the first study showed that the Tier 2 intervention improved mathematics performance for the majority of student participated in the study, and the effect of the intervention was sustained for the majority of students who responded to the Tier 2 intervention. The results of the second study showed that intensified Tier 3 intervention that involved one-on-one instruction and extended time for daily lessons may benefit students who have persistent difficulties with learning mathematics.

A Decade Review of Single‐Case Graph Construction in the Field of Learning Disabilities

“…or multiple-probe designsAlves et al (2015) 11 M = 2.10, SD = 0.09 M = 0.11, SD = 0.01Ayala et al (2013) 10 M = 1.36, SD = 0.01 M = 0.06, SD = 0.0004Barber et al (2018) 6 M = 2.27, SD = 0.16 M = 0.03, SD = 0.004 3 M = 2.26, SD = 0.02 M = 0.03, SD = 0.0003Burns et al (2015) 3 M = 2.89, SD = 0.20 M = 0.18, SD = 0.01Coulter et al (2015) 3 M = 1.57, SD = 0.02 M = 0.04, SD = 0.001Datchuk et al (2019) 8 M = 3.32, SD = 0.01 M = 0.03, SD = 0.0001 De LaPaz et al (2013) 6 M = 1.85, SD = 0.20 M = 0.19, SD = 0.02Dennis et al (2015) 12 M = 2.60, SD = 0.13 M = 0.10, SD = 0.01 12M = 1.66, SD = 0.13 M = 0.05, SD = 0.004 Doabler et al (2015) 4 M = 4.58, SD = 0.37 M = 0.08, SD = 0.01 Ennis et al (2019) 3 M = 2.56, SD = 0.02 M = 0.18, SD = 0.001 Farmer et al (2015) 21 M = 2.74, SD = 0.08 M = 0.06, SD = 0.002 Fishley et al (2012) 9 M = 2.23, SD = 0.09 M = 0.09, SD = 0.004 Flores et al (2014) 4 M = 3.89, SD = 0.10 M = 0.09, SD = 0.002 Freeman-Green et al (2015) 12 M = 1.92, SD = 0.03 M = 0.06, SD = 0.001 Grünke et al (2016) 9 M = 5.65, SD = 2.41 M = 0.35, SD = 0.08 Helman et al (2015) 3 M = 2.87, SD = 0.31 M = 0.09, SD = 0.01 Hughes et al (2019) 3 M = 2.03, SD = 0.002 M = 0.08, SD = 0.0001 Jozwik et al (2017) 9 M = 2.52, SD = 0.10 M = 0.07, SD = 0.003 Kong et al (2016) 8 M = 6.56, SD = 0.40 M = 0.33, SD = 0.02 Kong et al (2019) 18 M = 9.50, SD = 1.49 M = 0.63, SD = 0.29 Liu et al (2017) 3 M = 3.09, SD = 0.66 M = 0.13, SD = 0.001 Mancl et al (2012) 5 M = 5.19, SD = 0.26 M = 0.21, SD = 0.01 McKevett et al (2019) 6 M = 2.55, SD = 0.12 M = 0.11, SD = 0.005 Milton et al (2019) 15 M = 5.32, SD = 0.54 M = 0.12, SD = 0.01 Ness et al (2013) 3 M = 4.03, SD = 0.15 M = 0.10, SD = 0.004 Ok et al (2016) 4 M = 2.28, SD = 0.16 M = 0.06, SD = 0.004 Orosco et al (2014) 6 M = 4.25, SD = 0.42 M = 0.25, SD = 0.02 Rouse et al (2014) 2 M = 2.46, SD = 0.11 M = 0.06, SD = 0.003 Satsangi et al (2015) 3 M = 3.29, SD = 0.22 M = 0.13, SD = 0.01 Satsangi et al (2018b) 3 M = 3.26, SD = 0.19 M = 0.13, SD = 0.01 Satsangi et al (2018c) 9 M = 3.22, SD = 0.16 M = 0.12, SD = 0.01 Shen et al (2018) 6 M = 2.72, SD = 0.12 M = 0.12, SD = 0.01 Viel-Ruma et al (2010) 6 M = 5.81, SD = 0.23 M = 0.14, SD = 0.02 Wieber et al (2017) 3 M = 1.95, SD = 0.06 M = 0.10, SD = 0.003 Zhang et al (2016) 6 M = 5.00, SD = 0.73 M = 0.43, SD = 0.25 Alternating Treatments Design Billingsley et al (2018) 5 M = 4.25, SD = 0.24 M = 0.35, SD = 0.02 Monem et al (2018) 7 M = 1.49, SD = 0.003 M = 0.06, SD = 0.0001 Satsangi et al (2016) 3 M = 1.60, SD = 0.13 M = 0.04, SD = 0.003 Satsangi et al (2018a) 3 M = 1.57, SD = 0.001 M = 0.08, SD = 0.0001 Wieber et al (2017) 3 M = 1.83, SD = 0.01 M = 0.18, SD = 0.001 AB Design Barber et al (2018) 3 M = 1.31, SD = 0.11 M = 0.03, SD = 0.002 Benedek-Wood et al (2014) 12 M = 1.78, SD = 0.07 M = 0.13, SD = 0.01 Burke et al (2017) 6 M = 2.21, SD = 0.24 M = 0.25, SD = 0.03 Wade et al (2010) 3 M = 2.20, SD = 0.005 M = 0.17, SD = 0.0004 ABAB Zhang et al (2012) 4 M = 4.29, SD = 0.26 M = 0.23, SD = 0.01 Changing Criterion Design Evmenova et al (2010) 9 M = 2.33, SD = 0.20 M = 0.13, SD = 0.01 Note. Cooper et al (2020) recommend standardized x:y between 1.5 and 1.6.…”

Piloting the Response to Intervention Model in the Canary Islands: Prevention of Reading and Math Learning Disabilities

“…Although there are few studies focused on Tier 2 math interventions in the early grades of primary school (i.e., 1 st to 3 rd grade), all of them also come from English-speaking countries. Most have pointed out the efficacy of Tier 2 interventions to improve the learning rate of students at-risk for math failure (e.g., Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, & Chavez, 2008;Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, Funk, et al, 2008;Clarke et al, 2014;Dennis, 2015;Dennis et al, 2015;Doabler et al, 2019;Fuchs et al, 2005;Strand Cary et al, 2017). In addition, a meta-analysis revealed that most of the intervention programs carried out in RtI Tier 2 intervention focused on early basic math skills, finding a positive effect on the performance of students from first to third grade of primary education detected with difficulties in this area (Dennis et al, 2016).…”

“…RtI model has also proven to be useful to improve at-risk students performance in math (Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, & Chavez, 2008;Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, Funk, et al, 2008;Clarke et al, 2014;Dennis, 2015;Dennis et al, 2015;Fuchs et al, 2005;Strand Cary et al, 2017). In most of these studies the components included in the intervention have been mainly focused on number knowledge, number sequences, magnitude comparison, place value, number facts, computation with or without regrouping, concepts, and applications, and word problem-solving.…”

Applying an Individual Word-Problem Intervention to a Small-Group Setting: A Pilot Study’s Evidence of Improved Word-Problem Performance for Students Experiencing Mathematics Difficulty

“…In much of the research conducted at the elementary level for students experiencing MD, researchers provide support to individual students through one-to-one tutoring (Alghamdi et al, 2020;Burns, 2005;Dennis, 2015;Fuchs et al, 2008;Fuchs et al, 2021;Fuchs, Geary, et al, 2013;Powell, Driver, & Julian, 2015;Xin & Zhang, 2009). In other studies, researchers have implemented mathematics interventions in small groups (B. R. Bryant et al, 2016;Clarke et al, 2014;Codding et al, 2016;Doabler et al, 2019;Flores et al, 2014;Fuchs, Schumacher, et al, 2013;Jitendra et al, 2013;Peltier et al, 2020;Swanson et al, 2014).…”