Abstract
The purpose of this chapter was to consider three frameworks for operationalizing responsiveness to intervention (RTI) as a means of identifying mathematical learning disabilities. We began with the most complex framework, Systemic RTI Reform, and then addressed two increasingly more efficient versions: Embedded RTI and Dynamic Assessment. We described how each framework is conceptualized and operationalized and explain how each attempts to assure quality instruction and to assess response to that instruction. We concluded by comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the three frameworks.
Some of the research described in this chapter was supported by Grant R01 HD053714 and Grant R24 HD075443 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Vanderbilt University. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practicses for selementary school reading. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center on Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164000/pdf/20164000.pdf
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 254–270.
Compton, D. L., Gilbert, J., Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Cho, E., et al. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children into tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 204–216.
Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1–18.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012b). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multi-level prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
Fuchs, L.S. (1995). Incorporating curriculum-based measurement into the eligibility decision-making process: A focus on treatment validity and student growth. Invited presentation to the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Board on Testing and Assessment, Washington, DC.
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Craddock, C., & Hamlett, C. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 829–850.
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, 493–513.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012a). The early prevention of mathematics difficulty: Its power and limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 257–269.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–250.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergarten children’s mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J. M., Hamlett, C. L., & Lambert, W. E. (2008). Problem-solving and computation skills: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 30–47.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–584.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 85–111.
Kern, B. (1930). Wirkungsformen der Ubung (Effects in training). Munster, Germany: Helios.
Penrose, L. S. (1934). Mental defect. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Rosenfeld, R. G. (1982). Evaluation of growth and maturation in adolescence. Pediatrics in Review, 4, 175.
Ruffini, S., Lindsay, J., McInerney, M., Waite, W., & Miskell, R. (2016). Response to Intervention in Milwaukee Public Schools: Measuring fidelity of implementation (REL 2016–192). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest.
Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Predicting first graders’ development of calculation versus word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025988
Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2016). Does the value of dynamic assessment in predicting end-of-first-grade mathematics performance differ as a function of English language proficiency? Elementary School Journal, 117, 171–191.
Swanson, H. L., & Howard, C. B. (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in the classification? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 17–34.
Tanner, J. M., & Davies, P. S. W. (1985). Clinical longitudinal standards for height and height velocity for north American children. Journal of Pediatrics, 107, 317.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to intervention: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.
Vaughn, S. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442157
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published 1934).
Wolraich, M. (Ed.). (1996). Disorders of development and training: A practical guide to assessment and management (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Seethaler, P.M., Zhu, N. (2019). Three Frameworks for Assessing Responsiveness to Instruction as a Means of Identifying Mathematical Learning Disabilities. In: Fritz, A., Haase, V.G., Räsänen, P. (eds) International Handbook of Mathematical Learning Difficulties. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97148-3_39
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97148-3_39
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97147-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97148-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)