Advertisement

Three Frameworks for Assessing Responsiveness to Instruction as a Means of Identifying Mathematical Learning Disabilities

  • Lynn S. FuchsEmail author
  • Douglas Fuchs
  • Pamela M. Seethaler
  • Nan Zhu
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Mathematics learning disabilities Learning disabilities classification Response to intervention Dynamic Assessment Curriculum-based measurement 

References

  1. 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
  2. Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012b). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multi-level prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 85–111.Google Scholar
  16. Kern, B. (1930). Wirkungsformen der Ubung (Effects in training). Munster, Germany: Helios.Google Scholar
  17. Penrose, L. S. (1934). Mental defect. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenfeld, R. G. (1982). Evaluation of growth and maturation in adolescence. Pediatrics in Review, 4, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swanson, H. L., & Howard, C. B. (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in the classification? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published 1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolraich, M. (Ed.). (1996). Disorders of development and training: A practical guide to assessment and management (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynn S. Fuchs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Douglas Fuchs
    • 1
  • Pamela M. Seethaler
    • 1
  • Nan Zhu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Special EducationVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations