Search

Group size and treatment intensity are understudied topics in mathematics intervention research. This study examined whether the treatment intensity and overall intervention effects of an empirically validated Tier 2 mathematics intervention varied between intervention groups with 2:1 and 5:1 student-teacher ratios. Student practice opportunities and the quality of explicit instruction served as treatment intensity metrics. A total of 465 kindergarten students with mathematics difficulties from 136 intervention groups participated. Results suggested comparable performances between the 2:1 and 5:1 intervention groups on six outcome measures. Observation data indicated that student practice differed by group size. Students in the 5:1 groups received more opportunities to practice with their peers, while students in the 2:1 groups participated in more frequent and higher quality individualized practice opportunities. Implications in terms of delivering Tier 2 interventions in small-group formats and engaging at-risk learners in meaningful practice opportunities are discussed.

This study examined the efficacy of a Tier 2 kindergarten mathematics intervention program, ROOTS, focused on developing whole number understanding for students at risk in mathematics. A total of 29 classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment (ROOTS) or control (standard district practices) conditions. Measures of mathematics achievement were collected at pretest and posttest. Treatment and control students did not differ on mathematics assessments at pretest. Gain scores of at-risk intervention students were significantly greater than those of control peers, and the gains of at-risk treatment students were greater than the gains of peers not at risk, effectively reducing the achievement gap. Implications for Tier 2 mathematics instruction in a response to intervention (RtI) model are discussed., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014.)

This article presents findings of an efficacy trial examining the effect of a multitiered instruction and intervention model on first grade at-risk students' reading outcomes. Schools (N = 16) were randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition. In the fall of Grade 1, students were assigned to an instructional tier on the basis of Stanford Achievement Test-10th Edition scores (31st percentile and above = Tier 1; from the 10th to the 30th percentile = Tier 2). In both conditions, students identified as at risk (i.e., Tier 2; n = 267) received 90 min of whole group instruction (Tier 1) and an additional 30 min of daily small group intervention (Tier 2). In the treatment condition, teachers were trained to enhance core reading instruction by making instruction more explicit and increasing practice opportunities for students in Tier 1. In addition, at-risk readers were provided an additional 30-min daily small group intervention with content that was highly aligned with the Tier 1 core reading program. Results indicate significant, positive effects of the intervention on students' decoding and first semester fluent reading and potentially positive effects on reading comprehension and total reading achievement., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014.)

Children's aggressive behavior and reading difficulties during early elementary school years are risk factors for adolescent problem behaviors such as delinquency, academic failure, and substance use. This study determined if a comprehensive intervention that was designed to address both of these risk factors could affect teacher, parent, and observer measures of internalizing and externalizing problems. European American (n = 116) and Hispanic (n = 168) children from 3 communities who were selected for aggressiveness or reading difficulties were randomly assigned to an intervention or no-intervention control condition. Intervention families received parent training, and their children received social behavior interventions and supplementary reading instruction over a 2-year period. At the end of intervention, playground observations showed that treated children displayed less negative social behavior than controls. At the end of a 1-year follow-up, treated children showed less teacher-rated internalizing and less parent-rated coercive and antisocial behavior than controls. The study's limitations and implications for prevention are discussed.