Intervention

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(3), 2012 C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21596

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION IN MATHEMATICS: CRITICAL ELEMENTS
ERICA S. LEMBKE, DAVID HAMPTON, AND SARAH J. BEYERS
University of Missouri
While implementation efforts using a Response to Intervention (RtI) model to increase reading in-
struction are becoming widely used, more administrators and teachers are looking to learn effective
RtI practices to support learning in mathematics. This article explores some of the key elements
of RtI practices in mathematics, including screening for identication of struggling learners and
progress monitoring for gauging instructional effectiveness. In addition, several of the pressing
needs regarding the importance of mathematics prociency for all students are discussed. We de-
scribe some of the similarities and differences between RtI processes in reading and mathematics.
The article addresses the use of diagnostic data and details the importance of core instructional
practices that reect the standards included in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
standards and Common Core Mathematics standards, among others. The article concludes with a
discussion of some evidence-based interventions in mathematics, and we provide an implementa-
tion checklist to assist educators as they begin to implement RtI in mathematics.
C
2012 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) explicitly
allowed the use of student response to instruction when identifying a learning disability, with
less dependence on discrepancy between potential and achievement. To address the exibility that
IDEA allows, many states and school districts have begun transitioning away from the previous
identication model and moving toward a form of Response to Intervention (RtI; Zirkel & Thomas,
2010). Although RtI models may be relatively new to a majority of educators, school districts in
several states (i.e., Iowa, Minnesota, Florida, Ohio, and Illinois) have been using RtI models for
identifying and assisting struggling students in reading for more than a decade with positive results
(Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007). Two important inferences about the implementation
of RtI are drawn from these state initiatives: (a) RtI models may be successfully implemented in
schools to meet the needs of struggling learners, and b) RtI models assume different identities and
formats across different schools and districts. These differences are due, in part, to the notion that
each school district is unique and that RtI is described in many different ways (Hoover & Love,
2011). Although the majority of evidence supporting the use of RtI models has been conducted in
the area of reading, increasing attention is being paid to the area of mathematics, as the realization
that students who struggle with reading often also struggle with mathematics as well.
There are three primary reasons students who have learning difculties need to learn mathe-
matics. First, mathematics is integral to many important life skills (Minskoff &Allsopp, 2003). Each
day, people are presented with the need to have basic mathematics prociency, such as when pur-
chasing goods and services, performing household budgeting, and meeting todays technical work
demands. Second, high-stakes assessments, particularly at the secondary level, include mathematics
skills (i.e., algebra) that have become a benchmark for obtaining a high school diploma (Minskoff
& Allsopp, 2003). Therefore, students who have learning difculties must have basic prociency
with these mathematical concepts if they are to pass these tests and successfully graduate from
secondary school. Third, mathematics has become integral to student understanding in other subject
areas, such as the sciences, economics, and computer literacy. Students who struggle with mathe-
matical concepts will nd it difcult to learn these important subjects. Without a basic knowledge of
Correspondence to: Erica Lembke, University of Missouri, 311J Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail:
lembkee@missouri.edu
257
258 Lembke, Hampton, and Beyers
mathematics, students may struggle to pass courses and standardized tests, leading to potential
academic failure (Minskoff & Alsopp, 2003).
Research investigating the effective implementation of RtI has its foundation in reading; how-
ever, there are many core principles founded in reading research that can be utilized in creating an
RtI model in mathematics. Riccomini and Witzel (2010) have identied six principles that form RtI
models rst established in reading research, but translatable to mathematics. The rst principle is a
belief systemcentered on the ideal that all students can learn when effective instruction is present and
continually monitored. The second principle includes universal screening to measure all students
levels of prociency at least three times each academic year, serving to identify students who may
need more specialized instruction. The third principle is that a system of progress monitoring is
implemented to ascertain the effectiveness of teacher instruction and to inform academic decision
making. The fourth principle includes research-based instruction being used in both core learning
and intensied academic interventions. For the fth principle, tiers of instructional supports are
created and appropriate instruction and trained educators are used to implement supports to students
in each tier. Finally, the sixth principle suggests that ongoing program evaluation is essential to
ensure the effective implementation of RtI systems in schools.
As teachers and administrators begin to implement RtI in mathematics, many aspects used in
reading will be applied, but there are some differences between reading and mathematics. Unlike
reading, mathematics difculties may be blamed on the notion that not everyone can be procient in
mathematics. Even parents and some teachers will often excuse problems in math by rationalizing that
they were not good in math at that age either (Riccomini &Witzel, 2010). The National Mathematics
Advisory Panel (NMAP; 2008) stated that all students can and should be mathematically procient
in grades pre-K through 8 (p. 10). Another difference between RtI implementation in reading
and mathematics is the type of measure used for screening and progress monitoring. In reading,
the primary measures that have been used have been measures of oral reading or word selection
during a silent reading task. In mathematics, many measures are group administered and include
assessments of computation skill and applied knowledge of concepts. Finally, core instruction and
academic interventions will differ in content in mathematics, although many reading interventions
can be applied to some extent to mathematics vocabulary and word problems, for instance. There
is signicantly less research in the area of mathematics interventions than in reading, but recent
documents published by the NMAP (2008) and Gersten et al. (2009) summarize current ndings in
mathematics.
In this article, we will describe the key elements that should be included in an RtI model for
mathematics. One of the rst steps in implementation of an RtI process is the use of a screening tool
that will reliably identify students of concern and that provides valid information. As a guideline,
these measures would be administered three times during the school year (e.g., fall, winter, and
spring) to make sure that all students of concern are identied throughout the year. The academic
progress of these students with academic concerns is then frequently checked with measures that
model student growth across time and are predictive of long-term progress in mathematics. Two
instructional pieces are key in an RtI model: core instruction and intervention. Both need to be
supported by research evidence and both need to be implemented with delity. One of the nal
critical elements is data-based decision making. Graphed progress monitoring data are examined
by individual teachers, grade-level or content teams, or schoolwide teams to determine whether
instruction and intervention are effective for each student. If data indicate that a student is not
making progress, diagnostic data are used to determine where the skill decit lies, and a change
in instruction or intervention is targeted toward this skill decit. Each of these pieces of RtI will
be described in further detail in the following sections, including how each relates to mathematics.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Response to Intervention in Mathematics 259
The article will conclude by describing a potential action plan for use in initiating an RtI model in
mathematics.
SCREENING
A recent guidance document published by the National Center on RtI and titled Essential
Components of RtI: A Closer Look at Response to Intervention (National Center on RtI, 2010)
suggests that screening in an RtI model is a twofold process. First, universal screening, which
consists of a brief assessment administered to all students, is performed at the beginning, middle,
and end of the school year. Second, students who fall below the benchmark levels associated with
the set of measures are then given additional assessment or can be progress monitored for a short
time to gather more information regarding the students risk for learning difculties.
One type of measurement that has been widely used in RtI frameworks for universal screening
is Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM; Deno, 1985). In the area of mathematics, CBM universal
screeners are available for pre-K to rst grades in early numeracy, for elementary students in
computation and concepts and applications, and for secondary students in estimation and algebra
(Chard et al., 2005; Clarke & Shinn, 2004; Foegen, 2000; Foegen, Olson, & Impecoven-Lind, 2008;
Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fuchs, 1998, 1999; Lembke & Foegen, 2009). The screening tools chart on the
National Center for RtI Web site (rti4success.org), which is updated annually, provides an expert
evaluation of screening tools that are submitted for examination. Suggested screening tools that have
been evaluated can be found on the National Centers Web site by clicking on the screening tools
chart.
Screening measures are administered in 1 to 8 minutes, with early numeracy measures admin-
istered individually and measures for elementary and secondary students administered in a group.
Tasks range from early numeracy tasks, such as counting, number identication, and quantity dis-
crimination for preschool and primary grades, to computation, completing algebra equations, and
mathematical concepts such as data, time, and measurement for late elementary to secondary school
students.
A summary of reliability and validity data, as well as suggested growth rates and sources for
many common CBMmeasures, can be found in Table 1. This table can give educators a sense of how
measures fare across studies. Included in this list are measures from common web-based programs,
including AIMSweb (aimsweb.com) and Wireless Generation (mClass mathematics; wirelessgen-
eration.com). Other screening tools for early numeracy can be found on the Research Institute for
Progress Monitoring site (progressmonitoring.org), for K-8 mathematics on easyCBM.com, and for
algebra on the Algebra Assessment and Instruction site (www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/).
PROGRESS MONITORING
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; 2000) reported that assessment in
mathematics should be more than a test to gauge learning at the end of instruction. Rather, assess-
ment should become an integral part of the instruction that guides teachers and enhances students
learning. NCTM recommends that teachers continually gather information about student perfor-
mance and make appropriate decisions about instruction, content, pacing, review, and enrichment or
remediation for students who may be struggling. NCTM warns that assessment practices that are out
of synchronization with curriculum and instruction give the wrong signals to all those concerned
with education. Any assessment of mathematics learning should, rst and foremost, be anchored in
important mathematical content. It should reect topics and applications that are critical to a full
understanding of mathematics as it is used in todays world and in students later lives, whether in
the workplace or in later studies (NCTM, 2000). Although CBM for screening has previously been
discussed, CBM is also an excellent, research-based tool for progress monitoring.
Table 1
Technical Adequacy of Elementary Mathematics CBM Measures
Alternate
Grade Form Growth Rates
Study Level Reliability Criterion Validity (Weekly) Source
Counting Knowledge
Hampton et al. (in
press) (using
mClass math
measures)
K-1st .84.90 (K)
.83.91
(1st)
Concurrent: WJ-BM:
.45 (K), .40 (1st)
Predictive:
WJ-BM: .56 (K),
.44 (1st)
1.54 digits (K)
1.16 digits
(1st)
www.wirelessgeneration.com
Baglici, Codding,
& Tyron, 2010.
(using TEN
measures)
K-1st .65 digits (K)
.34 digits
(1st)
www.aimsweb.com
Clarke, Baker,
Smolkowski, &
Chard (2008)
K Concurrent: SESAT:
.55.59
Did not t
linear
growth
model
Clarke & Shinn
(2004) (using
TEN measures)
1st .93; Test-
retest-
.78.80
Number Knowledge
Test: .70 WJ-AP:
.60.64 M-CBM:
.49.50
.55 units www.aimsweb.com
Number Identication
Hampton et al. (in
press) (using
mClass math
measures)
K-1st .87.94 (K)
.84.91
(1st)
Concurrent: WJ-BM:
.44 (K), .49 (1st)
Predictive:
WJ-BM: .45 (K),
.49 (1st)
.73 digits (K)
.53 digits
(1st)
Baglici et al.,
2010. (using
TEN measures)
K-1st .71.84 .11 digits (K)
.15 digits
(1st)
www.aimsweb.com
Lembke &
Foegen, (2009)
K-1st .91.92 (K)
.87.90
(1st)
Test
retest
(median
of 3
scores):
.83.87
(K)
MBA: .52 (K); .49
(1st) Teacher
ratings: .4761 (K);
.4660 (1st)
TEMA: .33 (K);
1.52 (1st) SESAT:
1.52 (1st)
.79 (K) .25
(1st)
www.progressmonitoring.org
Clarke et al.
(2008)
.53.61
Did not t
linear
growth
model
Lembke et al.
(2008)
K-1st .79.93 (K)
77.89
(1st)
Teacher ratings:
.44.66 (K);
.03.70 (1st)
SESAT:-.47 (1st)
.34 digits (K)
.24 digits
(1st)
(Continued)
Table 1
Continued
Chard et al. (2005) K-1st Number Knowledge
Test: .58.65 (K);
.56.58 (1st)
1.3 digits (K)
.88 digits
(1st)
Clarke & Shinn
(2004) (using
TEN measures)
1st .89.93
Test
retest:
.76.85
Number Knowledge
Test: .70 WJ-AP:
.63.65 M-CBM:
.60.66
Magnitude Comparison (QD)
Hampton et al. (in
press) using
mClass math
measures
K-1st .66.88 (K)
.63.84
(1st)
Concurrent: WJ-BM:
.26 (K), .48 (1st)
Predictive:
WJ-BM: .40 (K),
.46 (1st)
.60 digits (K)
.48 digits
(1st)
Baglici et al.
(2010) (using
TEN measures)
K-1st .89.91 .21 digits (K
and 1st)
www.aimsweb.com
Lembke &
Foegen (2009)
K-1st .83.89 (K)
.81.89
(1st)
Test
retest
(median
of 3
scores):
.84.86
(K);
.84.91
(1st)
MBA: .38.50 (K);
.31.48 (1st)
Teacher ratings:
.46.59 (K);
.56.66 (1st)
TEMA:-.45 (K);
.57 (1st) SESAT: 60
(1st)
.49 digits (K)
.12 digits
(1st)
Clarke et al.
(2008)
.62
Growth of 3.3
across 5
assessments
Lembke et al.
(2008)
K-1st .83.91 (K)
.70.85
(1st)
Teacher ratings:
.55.62 (K);
.04.75 (1st)
SESAT: .50 (1st)
.27 (K) .12
(1st)
Test: .50.55 (K);
.45.53 (1st)
.28 digits (K)
.42 digits
(1st)
Clarke & Shinn
(2004) (using
TEN measures)
1st .92.93
Test
retest-
.85.86
Number Knowledge
Test: .80 WJ-AP:
.71.79 M- CBM:
.71.75
Missing Number
Hampton et al. (in
press) (using
mClass math
measures)
K-1st .72.84 (K)
.66.80
(1st)
Concurrent: WJ-BM:
.29 (K), .39 (1st)
Predictive:
WJ-BM: .47 (K),
.53 (1st)
.31 digits (K)
.10 digits
(1st)
(Continued)
Table 1
Continued
Baglici et al.
(2010) (using
TEN measures)
K-1st .81.86 .33 digits (K)
.02 digits
(1st)
www.aimsweb.com
Lembke &
Foegen (2009)
K-1st .59.75 (K)
.73.81
(1st)
Test
retest
(median
of 3
scores):
.79.82
(K);
.78-.88
(1st)
MBA: .49.57 (K);
.44.45 (1st) Teacher
ratings: .57.64 (K);
.56.70 (1st) TEMA:
.48 (K); .54 (1st)
SESAT: .75 (1st)
.17 (K) .03
(1st)
Clarke et al.
(2008)
.60.64
Did not t
linear
growth
model
Lembke et al.
(2008)
K-1st .76.82 (K)
.61.79
(1st)
Teacher ratings: .50.64
(K); .21.61 (1st)
SESAT .21 (1st)
.15 digits (K)
.11 digits
(1st)
Test: .64.69 (K); .61
(1st)
.33 digits (K)
.35 digits
(1st)
Clarke & Shinn
(2004) (using
TEN measures)
1st .78.83
Test
retest-
.79.81
Number Knowledge Test
.74 WJ-AP: .68.69
M-CBM: .74.75
Next Number
Hampton et al. (in
press) using
mClass math
measures
1st .52.80
(1st)
Concurrent: WJ-BM: .52
(1st) Predictive:
WJ-BM: .56 (1st)
.27 digits (1st) www.wirelessgeneration.com
Number Facts
Hampton et al. (in
press) using
mClass math
measures
1st .63.81
(1st)
Concurrent: WJ-BM: .52
(1st) Predictive:
WJ-BM: .67 (1st)
.18 digits (1st) www.wirelessgeneration.com
Computation
Fuchs et al. (1998:
MBSP
26 .45.93 MCT: .77.87; SAT-MC:
.55.93
.20.77 www.proedinc.com
Concepts and Applications
Fuchs et al. (1998:
MBSP
2nd
6th
.45.93 CTBS: Total math:
.71.81; CTBS:
Computation: .64.74;
CTBS: Concepts/
Applications: .64.81
.12.69 www.proedinc.com
(Continued)
Table 1
Continued
AIMSweb
Math-Concepts
and
Applications
2nd
6th
.83.89 .4 points (2nd:
50th
percentile);
.2 points
(3rd: 50th
percentile);
.1 points
(4th/5th:
50th
percentile)
www.aimsweb.com
Note: Adapted from a table originally published in Clarke, Lembke, Hampton, & Hendricker (2011). MBA = Mini
Battery of Achievement; MBSP = Monitoring Basic Skills Progress; M-CBM = Mathematics CBM; OC = oral
counting; SESAT = Stanford Early School Achievement Test; TEN = Test of Early Numeracy; WJ-AP = Woodcock
Johnson Applied Problems; WJ-BM= Woodcock Johnson Broad Math Score.
CBM serves as an important tool for progress monitoring in that it meets the requirements for
teacher utility, sensitivity to instructional effectiveness, sensitivity to frequent monitoring progress
of student performance, adaptability for use in identication and intervention, and relevance to the
issue of measuring multiple skills contained in acquiring mathematics prociency (Clarke & Shinn,
2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, Compton, Bryant, Hamlett, & Seethaler, 2007; Lembke, Foegen, Whittaker,
& Hampton, 2008; VanDerHeyden, Witt, Naquin, & Noell, 2001). CBM has numerous distinctive
features, but most critical is the technical adequacy of CBM measures that validate the ongoing
assessment of student progress and instructional decision making (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2007;
Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008). Progress monitoring allows educators to chart student data on a
frequent basis and measure student progress over time (Lembke et al., 2008). For more information
about progress monitoring in mathematics, see a review of the literature conducted by Foegen,
Jiban, and Deno (2007). More detail about the reliability and validity, as well as growth rates, for
elementary mathematics measures specically can be found in Table 1. These growth rates can help
teachers as they set individual goals for students by multiplying the suggested growth rate by the
number of weeks until the end of the goal period.
DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING
The primary goal of CBM progress monitoring is to evaluate instructional or intervention
effectiveness as determined by student growth. If a students growth trajectory is increasing at an
appropriate rate, one can reasonably believe that the instructional program has been effective. Just
as important, if a students growth is not increasing at an appropriate rate, or decreasing, one can
determine that the particular instructional program has not been effective (Riccomini & Witzel,
2010). These program evaluations are necessary to inform teachers decisions on instructional
effectiveness. Teachers might use a data decision rule such as the trend line rule, in which the
trend of data is calculated after a minimum of six data points collected weekly and then compared
with the goal line. If the trend is below the goal line, an intervention change is made; if the trend
is the same as the goal line, the current instruction continues; and if the trend is above the goal
line, an increase in the goal is considered. Examining graphed data and using decision making
rules like the trend line rule on a scheduled basis can greatly enhance understanding of student
progress and intervention effectiveness. Once it is determined that an intervention change is needed,
the next step is to use diagnostic data to determine in what skill area the change needs to be
made.
DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT
The purpose of diagnostic assessment is to provide educators with a deeper understanding of
specic concepts that present a picture of a students strengths and weaknesses in mathematical
understanding (Riccomini & Witzel, 2010). Teachers can use diagnostic information to target par-
ticular areas of difculties that students are having in their learning. To effectively address student
needs, teachers must understand a students use and competency with concepts such as mathematical
operations, processes, and skills, especially those that involve multiple features or steps. Addition-
ally, mathematics prociency requires students to move from a basic level of understanding, often
referred to as concrete, toward an abstract understanding of the complex nature that is inherent
in mathematics. Three research-based assessment practices, Concrete-Representational-Abstract
(CRA) assessment, error pattern analyses, and mathematics interviews, may be useful for teachers
to explore their students understanding of mathematical concepts (Allsopp, Kyger, & Lovin, 2007).
CRA assessment provides students with an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of a
mathematical concept or skill at any one of the three levels of understanding (concrete, represen-
tational, and abstract). The concrete level is the level at which students can solve problems when
using some type of manipulative or concrete object. The representational level is the level at which
students can solve problems with pictures, tallies, or other numerical representations. The abstract
level is the level at which students can solve problems without the use of objects or pictures. Often,
teachers assess students at an abstract level of understanding (i.e., using only numbers and symbols,
or mental math). If a student does poorly on abstract problems, then the teacher might assume that
the student does not understand the concept. If the teacher also assessed students at the concrete and
representational levels, then the teacher might nd that the student does have some understanding
of the concept. However, the teacher may nd students who are able to perform abstract math
problems, but cannot express an understanding of a particular concept (Allsopp et al., 2007). By
identifying and then building on students understanding, teachers can use increased precision in
their instruction that will allow students to move forward and acquire procedural and conceptual
knowledge. Therefore, to plan meaningful instruction, a CRA assessment incorporates assessment
of mathematics at all three levels of understanding (Allsopp et al., 2007).
Error pattern analysis is an assessment methodology that is useful for determining whether
students are making consistent mistakes when performing mathematics procedures. It might be
likened to a miscue analysis in reading. Simply stated, the teacher is trying to determine whether a
student is using a mathematical procedure that is correct. Error pattern analysis provides an effective
and efcient method of investigating particular difculties that students are having with a specic
concept or operation. Teachers provide students with problems of a specic type to solve and then
categorize errors following student completion of the problems. Types of errors might include place-
value errors, incorrect algorithms, not using the correct operation, and so forth. By determining
that a student is consistently using an incorrect process for solving problems, the teacher can then
provide targeted instruction and monitoring to help the student in using an effective procedure for
solving math problems. Specic types of error patterns can be a sign that a student not only uses an
ineffective procedure or computation but also does not understand important mathematical concepts
(Allsopp et al., 2007).
Mathematics interviews are a tool that teachers can use to investigate student understanding in
an informal setting. Here, the teacher can ask students how they solved a particular mathematical
problem and provide them with a chance to respond in their own words. The interviews purpose is
for the teacher to gain insight into a students mathematical thinking (Allsopp et al., 2007). There are
a variety of interview approaches available to the teacher. The teacher could give students a problem
and ask them to think aloud as they solve it. As the student thinks aloud, the teacher can make
notes of procedural errors and conceptual misunderstandings. A second potential interview model
could be to provide students with a structure for expressing their ideas. This would involve teacher
questions that prompt student thinking by asking them to represent a concept or to dene a concept
in concrete terms. A teacher can allow the use of manipulatives and allow students to illustrate their
understanding in pictures (Allsopp et al., 2007).
Although the examples provided are relatively low-tech, one example of how advances in tech-
nology are providing teachers with tools to assist in the diagnostic analysis of student prociency
in mathematics can be found in the mClass mathematics system from Wirelessgeneration.com. De-
veloped by Herbert Ginsburg at Columbia University, the diagnostic interview data can be collected
via handheld technology. Students are asked to solve problems in various areas (commensurate with
their grade level) and then are questioned about how they solved the problem and other ways that
they could have solved the problem. The handheld technology allows the administrator to document
the types of strategies the student uses (e.g., use of paper, manipulatives, counting on, counting
up, counting all) and then provides a mathematics prole for each student that details the students
strengths and areas of need, as well as potential activities the student or group of students could work
on. This tool provides an excellent way to determine the type of instructional change that might
be necessary. The professional can use the results from the students progress monitoring data, as
well as diagnostic data, to determine the extent of the intervention, with very low, plateau-like data
indicating the need for a more substantial change.
TIERED INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK
Overview of Tiers
The RtI framework mimics that of a prevention science model by providing a tiered approach
to academic intervention (Lembke, McMaster, & Stecker, 2010). Whereas the prevention science
model suggests universal, selective, and indicated prevention cycles (National Research Council &
Institute of Medicine, 2009), RtI employs three tiers of academic intervention: universal (Tier 1),
strategic (Tier 2), and intensive (Tier 3; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Students are assigned to various
tiers of intervention based on instructional need. Students who fail to respond to research-based
interventions at a tiered level may be moved to receive a more intensive intervention. Lembke
et al. (2010) further explain that students unable to respond to multiple tiers of intervention may be
referred for special education services. Students are assigned to tiers based on data gathered during
the screening process.
Instructional Practices
Tier 1. Primary prevention begins with a research-based core curriculum in mathematics that
is accessible to all students. The National Center on RtI (2010) guidance document denes the
core curriculum as the compulsory course of study usually mandated by the local school board
that is provided for all students. With the release of the common core mathematics standards in
2010 (see http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI Math%20Standards.pdf), the incorporation
of basic mathematics elements into all curriculum will become even more critical. In addition,
teachers should begin to see more consistency in what is taught state to state. In addition to these
common core standards, the NCTM will continue to provide guidance through curriculum standards
and focal points (see nctm.org).
The NMAP (2008) reviewed the literature in mathematics and determined that broad areas of
focus for mathematics instruction might include: curricular content, learning processes, teachers and
Table 2
Example of a Fidelity Checklist for a Lesson in Mathematics
Treatment Fidelity Self-Monitoringto Be Completed (Circle One):
Weekly Bi-monthly Monthly
The following mathematics topic is being implemented at this time:
Place a check next to each step as you complete it for a given lesson.
Provide an objective for the lesson in concrete and measureable terms.
Provide students a rationale for the strategy that you will be teaching them.
Introduce the strategy through modeling.
Use the strategy with the students with several problems (guided practice).
Have the students repeat back the steps in the strategy.
Have students work independently or in pairs to implement the strategy as they work on
some problems together.
Teach for generalization.
Teach for maintenance.
On a scale from 110, I implemented the lesson with this degree of fidelity (defined as
implementing the lesson using the given steps or sequence):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low fidelity High fidelity
teacher education, instructional practices, instructional materials, assessment, and research policies
and mechanisms. It is important that teachers are implementing the core curriculum with delity,
with frequent self-checks or collegial or administrative checks. See Table 2 for an example of a
delity checklist. If the core curriculum, implemented with delity, is not meeting the needs of the
majority of the students in the class, a district may need to revisit a change to the core or the addition
of a supplemental program (Riccomini & Witzel, 2010).
Instruction at this tier should include differentiated instruction that incorporates exible group-
ings and peer tutoring. Gersten et al. (2009) noted that there has not been much consensus on the
specics of instruction except that it should be high quality. Universal screening is used to de-
termine the students level of performance, and exible instructional groups are usually based on
screening data. Grade-level problem-solving teams are also sometimes used to determine appropriate
enrichment activities for students in Tier 1.
Tier 2. Secondary intervention is more appropriate for those students who fall belowbenchmark
scores on universal screening or are not making adequate progress with core curriculum (Gersten
et al., 2009). Tier 2 students do not typically receive the lowest scores on universal screening mea-
sures. Tier 2 encompasses students who range from somewhat below their average-achieving peers
to students who just barely fall above the threshold of Tier 3 or could be at risk of needing special
education services. Tier-2 interventions provide additional support for a small group of students
four to ve times a week for about 20 to 40 minutes per session. Gersten et al. (2009) state that
in mathematics, Tier 2 interventions should target building mathematics skills and competency.
The National Center for RtI (2010) guidance document advises that Tier-2 interventions should
be 10 to 15 weeks of explicit instruction that is teacher led, evidenced based and implemented
with delity. It is necessary to consistently monitor the progress of students who are receiving
Tier-2 interventions (Gersten et al, 2009; National Center for RtI, 2010). As mentioned previously,
progress monitoring is used every other week to determine whether a student is responding appro-
priately to the intervention and whether there is a need to modify the type of support the student is
receiving.
Specically for Tier-2 mathematics interventions Gersten et al. (2009) stress that instruction
during intervention needs to be explicit, systematic, and supplemental to the core curriculum. This
implies that students in Tier 2 need to be provided with a model of how to perform a skill or solve
a problem, guided practice and corrective feedback throughout the learning the skill, and repeated
review of the material. In mathematics, Gersten et al. (2009) describe a systematic curriculum as
instruction that builds student mathematical understanding in a logical order, giving an example of
learning place value before addition. Furthermore, Gersten et al. explain that explicit instruction
allows step-by-step modeling of how to solve computation problems, coupled with explaining the
reasoning behind the method to the students.
Tier 3. Students who struggle to respond to secondary intervention or who are identied as the
most academically needy following benchmarking, typically move into Tier 3. Gersten et al. (2009)
explain that Tier 3 intervention is the most intensive support provided to students who do not make
adequate progress in primary or secondary intervention efforts. Additionally, Gersten et al. delineate
that instruction at Tier 3 includes one-on-one tutoring with more intensive instruction.
Similar to Tier 2, Gersten et al. (2008) assert that instruction for those students with mathematic
difculties should incorporate explicit instruction, opportunities for students to verbalize mathemat-
ical reasoning, a variety of visuals, a logical sequence of examples, and frequent feedback for the
student. Progress monitoring should occur on a weekly basis to ensure that there is an appropriate
mix of instructional strategies. The National Center for RtI (2010) guidance document further ex-
plains that progress monitoring becomes a vital component of Tier 3 to help inform instructional
strategies. Data-based decision making is essential to determine whether students are benetting
from Tier 3 efforts, especially in mathematic skills (Gersten et al., 2009). Depending on the school,
Tier-3 services could include special education or, for some buildings or districts, special education
services are a separate fourth tier.
INTERVENTIONS
There are two main types of interventions that can be used within an RtI model. Lembke
et al. (2010) dene the standard treatment protocolapproach to intervention in an RtI model as
a set procedure that is evidence based and has been found to be effective. These interventions
are typically introduced as a package or product that can be purchased and, when implemented
with delity and supplemented with core instruction, can be highly effective for low-performing
students.
Alternatively, Tilly (2002) describes a problem-solving method that can be used to develop
interventions by determining the areas in which a student needs more support through assessment,
implementing an evidence-based intervention with delity, using ongoing assessment data to de-
termine the effectiveness of the intervention, and then either continuing with the intervention or
making an instructional change. One of the key differences between the problem-solving method
and a standard treatment protocol is that a problem-solving approach can be designed to meet the
needs of many individual students, whereas a standard treatment protocol is developed to meet the
needs of a very homogenous group of students (i.e., a group of students needing to learn to identify
numbers).
There are some key resources for evidence-based interventions in mathematics, including
the instructional tools chart from the National Center on RtI (rti4success.org); practice guides
from the What Works Clearinghouse (wwc.ed.gov); program reviews from the John Hopkins Ev-
idence Encyclopedia (bestevidence.org); reports on recent research reviews in mathematics from
the Center on Instruction (center-on-instruction.org/index.cfm), and a compilation of research-based
practices that are developed into practical tools for teachers through the Doing What Works Web
site (http://dww.ed.gov/). In Table 3, some of the most prominent evidence-based interventions are
described, and source information is provided, along with some key mathematics web sites.
CONCLUSION
Although not as much has been written about and applied in schools for RtI in mathematics
compared with RtI in other subjects, the essential features, such as incorporating evidence-based
practices, screening, progress monitoring, intervention implementation, and data utilization, remain
important xtures of best-practice teaching. In fact, implementation or renement of even one of
these elements would result in productive changes for a school or district. As school teams explore
how to begin using an RtI structure in mathematics, they can capitalize on any work that is already
completed in other subjects, such as reading, and can also complete a needs assessment or self-
survey on RtI practices to determine where to focus rst. Examples of surveys can be found on
interventioncentral.org or rti4success.org.
The implementation checklist in Table 4 provides an overview of the essential elements dis-
cussed in this article, along with a date for completion, who will be responsible for checking on
implementation progress, the activities that will support implementation of the element, and the
overall goal for each element. For example, critical element 1, choosing and implementing a math-
ematics screening system that provides reliable and valid data at least 3 times per year, might have
a suggested completion date of 36 weeks from the initial meeting. After assigning someone to track
progress and help to support implementation, activities to help implement schoolwide screening are
derived and might include researching and selecting screening materials, training staff on imple-
mentation and scoring, and conducting screening fall, winter, and spring. The goal for this particular
element might be to collect screening data at 3 points during the year, with computation measures
only. As teachers become more adept with the RtI process, a second goal in the area of screening
might be to screen using both computation and concepts and applications measures. Using this
planning sheet, teams can set both reasonable and ambitious goals for themselves in the area of
mathematics RtI.
Table 3
Evidence-Based Interventions in Mathematics
Intervention Strategies and Programs
in Mathematics Description Where to Find More Information
Mathematics Peer-Assisted Learning
(PALS; Fuchs, Fuchs, Yazdian, &
Powell, 2002)
This program is a version of classwide
peer tutoring to practice mathematic
skills for K-6th graders.
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/
Cover, Copy, Compare (Skinner
et al., 1989)
A strategy where the student is instructed
to cover the correct model on the left
side of the page with an index card and
to copy the problem and compute the
correct answer in the space on the right
side of the sheet. The student then
uncovers the correct answer on the left
and checks his or her own work.
Interventioncentral.org
Incremental Rehearsal
(Burns, 2005)
Incremental rehearsal builds student
uency in basic math facts by pairing
unknown items with an increasing set
of known items.
Interventioncentral.org
The Early Numeracy Booster
(Bryant et al., 2008)
This K through 1st-grade program
targets recommendations made by the
National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics and the National
Mathematics Advisory Panel for early
number sense development.
Chapter 5 in Gersten &
Newman-Gonchar (2011)
Understanding RtI in mathematics.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks
Publishing
Hot Math (Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Hollenbeck, 2007)
A 3rd-grade program that teaches
students with math difculties how to
solve common word problems.
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/
Pirate Math (Fuchs, Fuchs, Powell,
Seethaler, Cirino, & Fletcher,
2008)
A 2nd- and 3rd-grade tutoring program
that provides strategies for solving
word problems.
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/ or email
ora.murray@Vanderbilt.Edu
Number Rockets (Fuchs, Compton,
Fuchs, Paulsen, Bryant, &
Hamlett, 2005)
A 1st-grade small-group tutoring
program that uses concrete objects to
promote conceptual learning.
http://www.rti4success.org/
tools charts/popups instruction/
number rockets info.html
Transmath (Voyager Learning) Multitiered math intervention curriculum
for grades 510.
Voyager Learning.
http://www.voyagerlearning.com/
transmath/index.jsp
Vmath (Voyager Learning) Multitiered math intervention curriculum
for grades 28.
http://www.voyagerlearning.com/
vmath/index.jsp
Touch Math (Innovative Learning
Concepts, Inc)
TouchMath is a multisensory program
using signature TouchPoints to engage
pre-K through 3rd-grade students in
mathematics.
http://www.touchmath.com/
Number Worlds Intensive mathematics instruction for
grades pre-K through 8th intended to
help students one to two grade levels
behind their peers in mathematics.
http://www.sranumberworlds.com/#
Mastering Math Facts (Otter Creek
Institute)
A supplemental program that is used in
the classroom to complement the math
curriculum for grades 18.
http://www.oci-
sems.com/Default.aspx
(Continued)
Table 3
Continued
Helpful Web Sites for Math Resources
Mathematics curriculum focal points http://nctm.org/standards/focalpoints.aspx?id=298
Center on Instructionevidence-based resources in mathematics http://www.center-on-instruction.org/index.cfm
What Works Clearinghouse wwc.ed.gov
National Center on RtI www.Rti4success.org
Illuminations (lesson plans and activities based on the NCTM
standards)
www.illuminations.nctm.org
Table 4
Mathematics RtI Implementation Plan
Critical Element Date Who Is Responsible? Activity Goal
Mathematics screening system that provides reliable and valid data is
chosen and implemented at least 3 times per year
Mathematics progress monitoring system that provides frequent,
reliable, and valid data on student progress is chosen and
implemented
Schoolwide screening data in mathematics are examined and
discussed by teams following screening to evaluate current core
programs
An evidence-based core instructional program in mathematics is
implemented with delity
Evidence-based mathematics interventions for Tiers 2 and 3 are
identied, scheduled, and implemented with delity
A routine for progress monitoring of students in Tiers 2 and 3 in
mathematics is established and data are discussed routinely using
data decision rules
Fidelity checks on core mathematics instruction, mathematics
enrichment for Tier 1 students, and mathematics intervention for
Tier 2 and Tier 3 students are scheduled, completed, and discussed
on a frequent basis.
REFERENCES
Allsopp, D. H., Kyger, M. M., & Lovin, L. H. (2007). Teaching mathematics meaningfully: Solutions for reaching struggling
learners. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Baglici, S. P., Codding, R., & Tyron G. (2010). Extending the research on the tests of early numeracy: Longitudinal analyses
over two school years. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(2), 89102.
Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., and Chavez, M. M. (2008). Mathematics intervention for rst
and second grade students with mathematics difculties: The effects of tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons.
Remedial and Special Education, 29, 2032.
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase uency of single digit multiplication facts with children
identied as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237249.
Chard, D. J., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen
for difculties in mathematics: Preliminary ndings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 314.
Clarke, B., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2008). An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement:
Examining the role of growth in student outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 4657.
Clarke, B., Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Hendricker, E. (2011). Understanding the R in RtI: What we know and what
we need to know about measuring student response in mathematics. In R. Gersten & R. Newman-Gonchar (Eds.),
Understanding RtI in mathematics: Proven methods and applications (pp. 3548). Baltimore: Brookes.
Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identication and development of early mathematics
curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234248.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219232.
Foegen, A. (2000). Technical adequacy of general outcome measures for middle school mathematics. Diagnostique, 25,
175203.
Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal
of Special Education, 41, 121139.
Foegen, A., Olson, J. R., &Impecoven-Lind, L. (2008). Developing progress monitoring measures for secondary mathematics:
An illustration in algebra. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 240249.
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identication,
and cognitive determinants of math difculty. Journal of Education, Psychology, 97, 493513.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Identifying learning disabilities with RtI. Perspectives, 32, 3943.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and
progress monitoring at rst grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311330.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. H. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at rst and
third grades. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 1324.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing rst grade childrens mathematical development with
peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569584.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Sccthaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervantion for
students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principle of effective practice. Learning Disabilities quarterly, 31, 7992.
Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic math computation (2nd ed.)
[Computer software, manual, and blackline masters]. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic math concepts and applications
[Computer software, manual, and blackline masters]. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with
mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC:
Naional Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2008). Mathematics instruction
for students with learning disabilities or difculty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the inter-
vention research. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/les/Teaching%20Math%20to%20SLD%20Meta-analysis.pdf
Hampton, D., Lembke, E., Lee, Y. S., Pappas, S., Chiong, C., & Ginsberg, H. (in press). Technical adequacy of early
numeracy curriculum-based progress monitoring measures for kindergarten and rst grade students. Assessment for
Effective Intervention.
Hoover, J. J., & Love, E. (2011). Supporting school-based response to intervention: A practitioners model. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 43(3), 4048.
Hosp, M. K., Hosp. J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement.
New York: Guilford Press.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Response to intervention: The science and practice of
assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.
Kelley, B., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2008). Curriculum-based evaluation and math: An overview. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 33(4), 250256.
Lembke, E., & Foegen, A. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and rst grade students. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 1220.
Lembke, E. S., Foegen, A., Whittaker, T. A., & Hampton, D. (2008). Establishing technical adequate measures of progress
in early numeracy. Assessment for effective intervention, 33(4), 206214.
Lembke, E. S., McMaster, K. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The prevention science of reading research within a response-to-
intervention model. Psychology in the School, 47(1), 2235.
Minskoff, E., & Allsopp, D. H. (2003). Academic success strategies for adolescents with Learning disabilities and ADHD.
Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, March). Essential components of RtI A closer look at response to
intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Ofce of Special Education Programs, National Center
on Response to Intervention.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The nal report of the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC.
National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among
young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Riccomini, P. J., & Witzel, B. S. (2010). Response to intervention in math. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Lutz, J. G., Santoro, L. E. &Hintze, J. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on
state assessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 24(1), 1935.
Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: A method for increasing
multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 412420.
Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., &Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making.
Preventing School Failure, 52, 4858.
Tilly W. D., III, (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problemsolving enterprise. In A. Thomas &J. Grimes (Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 2136). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., Naquin, G., & Noell, G. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based
measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363382.
Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3),
5663.

Intervention

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intervention

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(3), 2012 C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21596

You might also like