Marah Sutherland, Taylor Lesner, Derek Kosty, Cayla Lussier, Keith Smolkowski, Jessica Turtura, Christian T Doabler, Ben Clarke
{"title":"Examining Interactions Across Instructional Tiers: Do Features of Tier 1 Predict Student Responsiveness to Tier 2 Mathematics Intervention?","authors":"Marah Sutherland, Taylor Lesner, Derek Kosty, Cayla Lussier, Keith Smolkowski, Jessica Turtura, Christian T Doabler, Ben Clarke","doi":"10.1177/00222194221102644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-quality Tier 1 instruction is frequently conceptualized as the \"foundation\" for other tiers of intervention within multitiered systems of support (MTSS) models. However, the vast majority of Tier 2 intervention studies do not account for Tier 1 variables when examining intervention effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to examine Tier 1 predictors, or \"quality indicators,\" of differential responsiveness to Tier 2 mathematics intervention. Data were drawn from a large-scale data set where all teachers taught the Early Learning in Mathematics (Tier 1) core program across the academic year, and a subset of students were selected for the ROOTS (Tier 2) mathematics intervention. We examined the following Tier 1 variables: (a) classroom-level mathematics gains, (b) Tier 1 fidelity of implementation, (c) Tier 1 classroom management and instructional support, and (d) class size. Response to Tier 2 intervention was not significantly predicted by any of the Tier 1 variables examined; however, the pattern of Hedges' <i>g</i> effect sizes suggested that students with higher quality of Tier 1 instruction tended to benefit less from the Tier 2 ROOTS intervention. Results are discussed in the context of implications for research and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"56 4","pages":"243-256"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221102644","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
High-quality Tier 1 instruction is frequently conceptualized as the "foundation" for other tiers of intervention within multitiered systems of support (MTSS) models. However, the vast majority of Tier 2 intervention studies do not account for Tier 1 variables when examining intervention effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to examine Tier 1 predictors, or "quality indicators," of differential responsiveness to Tier 2 mathematics intervention. Data were drawn from a large-scale data set where all teachers taught the Early Learning in Mathematics (Tier 1) core program across the academic year, and a subset of students were selected for the ROOTS (Tier 2) mathematics intervention. We examined the following Tier 1 variables: (a) classroom-level mathematics gains, (b) Tier 1 fidelity of implementation, (c) Tier 1 classroom management and instructional support, and (d) class size. Response to Tier 2 intervention was not significantly predicted by any of the Tier 1 variables examined; however, the pattern of Hedges' g effect sizes suggested that students with higher quality of Tier 1 instruction tended to benefit less from the Tier 2 ROOTS intervention. Results are discussed in the context of implications for research and practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.