Advertisement

Tier 3: Intensive Mathematics Intervention Strategies

  • Robin S. CoddingEmail author
  • Ryan Martin
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to offer strategies for developing tier 3 treatment packages for students experiencing mathematics difficulties. There is a paucity of available standard protocol interventions that meet evidence-based expectations and current research is underway to address this gap. Types of mathematics challenges are reviewed and a general overview of the status of mathematics interventions is provided. The majority of this chapter describes six key elements of intensive mathematics intervention packages: (a) skill by treatment match; (b) explicit instruction; (c) self-instruction; (d) concrete–representation–abstract sequencing; (e) productive opportunities for practice; and (f) motivation. Corresponding evidence for the use of each of these strategies is described with emphasis on number combinations and fluency.

Keywords

Treatment Package Mathematics Anxiety Treatment Match Acquisition Stage Skill Proficiency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, R. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baroody, A. J., Bajwa, N., & Eiland, M. (2009). Why can’t Johnny remember the basic facts? Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(1), 69–79. doi:10.1002/ddrr.45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrouillet, P., & Fayol, M. (1998). From algorithmic computing to direct retrieval: Evidence from number and alphabetic arithmetic in children and adults. Memory and Cognition, 26, 355–368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42(6), 477–490. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant, D., Bryant, B. R., & Hammill, D. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177. doi:10.1177/002221940003300205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryant, D., Bryant, B. R., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Pfannenstiel, K., Porterfield, J., & Gersten, R. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
  9. Burns, M. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in consultation: A review of three levels of research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.Google Scholar
  11. Burns, M., Codding, R. S., Boice, C., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instruction and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39, 69–83.Google Scholar
  12. Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance: An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(1), 23–34. doi:10.1023/A:1022318321416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christ, T. J. (2008). Best practices in problem analysis. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 159–176). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  14. Codding, R. S., & Poncy, B. C. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Toward an explicit technology for generalizing academic behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Codding, R. S., Lewandowski, L. J., & Eckert, T. L. (2005). Examining the efficacy of performance feedback and goal setting interventions: A comparison of two methods of goal setting. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6, 42–58.Google Scholar
  16. Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness? Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Codding, R. S., Chan-Iannetta, L., Palmer, M., & Lukito, G. (2009a). Examining a class-wide application of cover-copy-compare with and without goal setting to enhance mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Codding, R. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Panahon, C., & Benson, J. (2009b). Addressing mathematics computation problems: A review of simple and moderate intensity interventions. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011a). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(1), 36–47. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Codding, R. S., Chan-Iannetta, L., George, S., Ferreira, K., & Volpe, R. (2011b). Early number skills: Examining the effects of class-wide interventions on kindergarten performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dahaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Daly, E. J., Hintze, J., & Hamler, K. R. (2000). Improving practice by taking steps toward technological improvements in academic intervention in the new millennium. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement instruction and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.Google Scholar
  25. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. W. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  27. Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 195–207. doi:10.1177/0741932508327467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Powell, S. R. (2003). Math flash [computer software]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493–513. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 13–24. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00227.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., et al. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 79–92.Google Scholar
  32. Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539–1552. doi:10.1037/a0025510.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345–362. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.345.Google Scholar
  34. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & DeSoto, M. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(2), 121–151. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Geary, D. C., Bailey, D. H., & Hoard, M. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool: The number sets test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 265–279. doi:10.1177/0734282908330592.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 93–304.Google Scholar
  38. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gickling, E. E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Minneapolis: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.Google Scholar
  40. Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Goldman, S. R. (1989). Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional technology: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
  43. Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1–7.Google Scholar
  44. Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A., & Zydney, J. (2006). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. http://www.ldonline.org/article/6291/. Accessed 4 Dec 2012.
  45. Jitendra, A. K. (2007). Solving math word problems. Teaching students with learning disabilities using schema-based instruction. Austin: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(2), 103–119. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00032-8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867. doi:10.1037/a0014939.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kroeger, S. D., & Kouche, B. (2006). Using peer-assisted learning strategies to increase response to intervention in inclusive middle math settings. (Cover story). Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 6–13.Google Scholar
  50. Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics intervention for children with special needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lin, F., & Kubina, R. M., Jr. (2005). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between fluency and application for multiplication. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martens, B. K., & Eckert, T. L. (2007). The instructional hierarchy as a model of stimulus control over student and teacher behavior: We’re close but are we close enough? Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 83–91.Google Scholar
  53. Mazzocco, M. M., & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(3), 142–155.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 115–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19–35. doi:10.1177/074193259201300303.Google Scholar
  56. Methe, S. A., Hojnoski, R., Clarke, B., Owens, B. B., Lilley, P. K., Politylo, B. C., & Marcotte, A. M. (2011). Innovations and future directions for early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Commentary on the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(6), 200–209. doi:10.1177/1534508411414154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller, S., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). Mnemonics: Enhancing the math performance of students with learning difficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29(2), 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37–44.Google Scholar
  59. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2009). Kindergarten predictors of recurring externalizing and internalizing psychopathology in the third and fifth grades. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(2), 67–79.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  61. National Governers Associaton Center for Best Practices, Council of Cheif State School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards for mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2012.
  62. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008, March). Foundations for success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC. http://www.colonialsd.org/colonial/lib/colonial/national_math_panel_highlights_march_2008.doc. Accessed 11 Nov 2008.
  63. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006). Detect, practice, and repair: The effects of a classwide intervention on elementary students’ math-fact fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 7(1), 47–68.Google Scholar
  64. Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Effects of fact retrieval tutoring on third-grade students with math difficulties with and without reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(1), 1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.01272.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Rivera, D. M., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). Mathematics instruction for students with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shapiro, E. (2011). Academic kills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  67. Skinner, C. H., & Daly, E. (2010). Improving generalization of academic skills: Commentary on the special series. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 54–64. doi:10.1037/h0088947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siegler, R. S., & Booth, J. L. (2004). Development of numerical estimation in young children. Child Development, 75(2), 428–444. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00684.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Siegler, R. S., & Ramani, G. B. (2009). Playing linear number board games-but not circular ones-improves low-income preschoolers’ numerical understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 545–560. doi:10.1037/a0014239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swanson, H. (2009). Science-supported math instruction for children with math difficulties: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.), Implementing evidence-based academic interventions in school settings (pp. 85–106). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject design intervention research for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 114–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Thurber, R., Shinn, M. R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 498–513.Google Scholar
  74. Tournaki, N. (2003). The differential effects of teaching addition through strategy instruction versus drill and practice to students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(5), 449–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. VanDerHeyden, A., & Burns, M. (2008). Using curriculum-based assessment and curium-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–31.Google Scholar
  76. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2008). Best practices in can’t do/won’t do assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V: Vol. 2 data-based decision making (pp. 195–208). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  77. Woodward, J. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts-BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations