Academic Intervention Consultation

Presenter: Lizbeth Ramirez

Background Information
Student: Jane
Age: 7-2
Grade: 2nd
She has two older brothers
She attends Jefferson Elementary School

No interventions have been tried

Academic History
Jane has attended Jefferson since Kindergarten

Last year she struggled with memorization of number facts

At the end of first grade, her teacher suggested that Jane work on math
facts (-/+) through 20

She has never been retained

She has good behavior and attendance

Reason for Referral

Referred By:

Due to:

2nd grade teacher

Concerns about her academic

progress in math at beginning of
the schoolyear

Current Academic Performance

Jane is currently enrolled in the general education program at Jefferson
Her teacher reported that Jane is struggling with basic addition and
subtraction
In particular, the teacher is concerned with Dakotas math computation
fluency
Dakotas performance at baseline was 5.6 CD/2min

She is currently averaging about 9.4 CD/2min

Her attendance and behavior are good

Response to Intervention
Tier 2 Math
Goal: Jane will make progress on her addition
and subtraction computation fluency to meet the
2nd grade standard (16-22CD/2min) by the end
of this school year.

Intervention: Math Computation: Increase

Accuracy and Productivity Rates via SelfMonitoring and Performance Feedback
Progress Monitoring Results: Weekly addition
and subtraction computation probes to measure
correct digits in two minutes.

Recipe Card
Math Computation: Increase Accuracy and Productivity Rates Through SelfMonitoring and Performance Feedback
Grade Level: 2nd Grade and higher
Purpose: Improve math computation fluency
Frequency: At least twice a week, 15-20 minutes each session.
Materials:
1. Math worksheets & answer keys with problem types the student needs to practice
e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication etc. (generate for free at
http://themathworksheetsite.com/)
2. Stop watch
3. Student self-monitoring chart (the vertical axis of the chart extends from 0 to 100
and is labeled 'Correct Digits' the horizontal axis of the chart is labeled 'Date')
4. A menu of rewards the student can choose from

Before the intervention:

The teacher meets with the student. The teacher shows the student a sample math
computation worksheet and answer key. The teacher tells the student that s/he will
have the chance to complete similar math worksheets and chart his/her scores. The
student is told that s/he will win a reward on any day when his/her number of correctly
computed digits on the worksheet is higher than the previous day.
Directions:
1. The student is given a math worksheets and answer key. The student consults
his/her progress-monitoring chart and notes the most recent charted computation
fluency score. The student is encouraged to try to achieve a higher score.
2. When the intervention session starts, the student is given a pre-selected amount of
time (e.g., 5 minutes) to complete as many problems on the worksheet as possible.
The student sets a timer for the selected time and works on the sheet until the timer
rings.
3. The student uses the answer key to check his/her work, giving credit for each correct
digit in an answer. (A 'correct digit' is a digit of the correct value that appears in the
correct place-value location in an answer. In this scoring method, students can get
partial credit even if some of the digits in an answer are correct and some are
incorrect.).
4. The student plots his/her score on the progress-monitoring chart and writes the
current date at the bottom of the chart below the plotted data point. The student is
allowed to select a choice from the reward menu if s/he achieves a higher score than
the most recent charted score.
Data Collection: Weekly computation probes (from interventioncentral.org) to
measure correct digits in 2 minutes.

References:
Mooney, P., Ryan, J. B., Uhing, B. M., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2005). A review of selfmanagement interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional
and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(3), 203-221.
Rafferty, L. A., & Raimondi, S. L. (2009). Self-monitoring of attention versus selfmonitoring of performance: Examining the differential effects among students with
emotional disturbance engaged in independent math practice. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 18(4), 279-299.
Reid, R., Trout, A. L., & Schartz, M. (2005). Self-regulation interventions for children
with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 361.
Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement,
productivity, and accuracy of students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Progress Monitoring Graph

Progress Monitoring Graph
Progress

18.00

Session Score

16.00

14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00

2.00
0.00
-------- Aim or goal line
_____ Linear (averaged) progress

Progress Monitoring Sessions

Summary
Jane made progress toward her goal following 6 weeks of intervention
More data is needed before making a decision
Dakotas goal should remain the same until data is collected for two more
weeks
After the two more weeks, a decision should be made to change the
intervention or increase her goal.
10-01

10-09

10-23

10-30

11-05

11-13

11-20

Score

5.6

14

11

Goal

5.6

6.1

6.6

7.1

7.6

8.1

8.6

12-04

12-11

12-18

9.1

9.6

10.1

*10-01 is the baseline data point; Thanksgiving break occurred after the 11-20 data point.

Recommendations
Jane should continue her intervention
If her goal is maintained for two weeks
after Thanksgiving break, it should be
increased

If her goal is not maintained, the

number of days Jane receives
intervention should be increased

Current System
Reading groups
No recent benchmark scores

No weekly progress monitoring

No math intervention

The Good
Smooth referral process
Cooperative consultee
Cooperative parent
Cooperative student with good
attendance

The Bad
Limited days of intervention
No one else provided intervention
Minimum days
Staff development days

No other math interventions in place

Lack of practice at home
Uncertainty regarding intervention

 Lack of teacher
cooperation
Lack of student
cooperation
No interventions in
place
No practice at home

The Ugly

PHS Case

PHS Case
Progress Monitoring Graph

Session Score

120.00
100.00
80.00

60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Progress
Goal

Progress Monitoring Sessions

The End