Transcript RPT_PI: Rationale

Reciprocal Peer Tutoring
with Parent Involvement
(RPT_PI)
A Targeted Tier 2 Intervention for Students
“At Risk” for Math Difficulties
Heller & Fantuzzo (1993)
See RPT-PI Handout 1
Summary of RPT-PI
RPT_PI: Rationale

Students identified as “at-risk” for math difficulties working at
school in peer tutoring sessions achieve greater outcomes in
building math skill when parents are involved.

When parents of “at risk” students meet together and are asked
about preferred strategies for their involvement, they generate
options that fit their family culture, schedules, and comfort level.

When academic intervention incorporates preferred parent
involvement methods, parent involvement is more likely to occur
and be successful.

Parents’ reinforcement of skills taught at school have a direct effect
on children’s achievement.
RPT-PI: Targeted Intervention

Evidence based targeted group intervention (Tier 2)

Targeted group in study:
 4th & 5th grade public elementary students
 African American; 50% male/50% female
 85% eligible for free/reduced lunch
 “At Risk” for math problems:
below 50th percentile on a standardized math achievement test
AND
 Poor performance in math as rated by classroom teachers.

Implementation of
RPT-PI
See RPT-PI Handout 2
for list of Implementation Procedures
Identify “At Risk” Students

Screen all students in upper elementary grades
for students “at risk” for math calculation
difficulties.
Administer CBM calculation math probes,
class-wide administrations for each grade level
 Teachers verify “at risk” status


All students at or below 50th percentile at grade
level CBM are given additional tutoring via
Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT) groups.
Form RPT Groups

Use additional Curriculum Based Computation Test
(CBM) to:

Identify 3-4 skill levels from 2nd to 6th grade math.
Students placed at instructional level identified via CBM
 Level criteria >40th and <75th percentile of level


Develop CBM computation tests for each skill
level.
Tests 20 minute duration
 Accurate computation per minute (accuracy x speed)


Form student pairs at each instructional level
Parent Involvement (PI) Component
See RPT-PI Handout 3



Invite parents of “at risk” students to a Parent
Involvement meeting (See RPT_PI Handout 3)
Parent Meeting Goal: to promote enhanced student
achievement and adjustment by including parents in
their child’s RPT math intervention.
Parent Meeting Agenda:


Parent Critique: parents asked to critique and offer possible
explanations about why parents may or may not want to be
involved in their child’s math intervention
School Acknowledgement: parents sometimes are unable to
participate due to work commitments or other responsibilities,
not due to lack of interest in child’s education.
Parent Involvement (PI) Component

Parent Involvement meeting (continued):

Parents as a group generate a list of activities that
support the intervention, for example:
Parents provide home rewards for math performance in RPT
 Parents attend classroom sessions to observe children in RPT
 Parents serve as “assistants”, providing aid in the project
classroom and contacting other parents.

Parents are asked to be involved at whatever level fits
their schedule and comfort level.
 Parents select the activity(s) they will participate in.

Parent Involvement (PI) Component

Inclusion of parents unable to attend planning
meeting by written communication:
Report “parent critique” results
 Acknowledge parent participation is evaluated by
family schedule, comfort level; not lack of interest.
 Parent Involvement activity(s) selection:

List of parent generated activities
 Ask parent to select activity(s) they want to commit to using
 Schedule time to meet with parent to explain activity(s)

3 Parent Involvement Activities

Parent Issues Home Rewards:
Parents are telephoned by the school when child wins a
home reward for meeting math performance goals
 Parents sign their child’s “award certificate” for meeting the
math goal in RPT.
 Parents fill in what reward is issued to their child on the
“award certificate” and the student returns the certificate to
school.


Parent Assists during RPT Session:
Parent trained on RPT procedures; “teacher” and “student”
 Parent assists RPT pairs during sessions (e.g. answers
questions, helps with timing, etc.)


Parent Observes during RPT Session
RPT Group Intervention Procedures
See RPT-PI Handout 2

Prior to starting intervention, students receive two 45-minute
trainings about:



RPT Sessions are conducted:






intervention procedures
concepts about “partnering” and “goal setting” in instructional pairs.
twice per week
for approximately 30 minutes
over 8 months.
RPT Sessions take place outside the regular classroom, in an
“intervention” room.
Students work in same-sex pairs within a group team of no more
than 7 pairs.
Teacher aides and/or parents work in pairs with intervention
group teams that are working in pairs.
RPT Student Team Procedures



Student “teams” comprised of no more than 7 pairs of
students.
Only one group team meets for RPT at one time.
Student teams set weekly math achievement goal



Estimate the number of drill sheet problems the team will
answer correctly
Teacher aides help students select team goal from a restricted
range with very small differences in problem difficulty.
Student teams chose group school reward options (e.g.
cleaning blackboards) to be earned as a result of meeting
the team goal and to be rewarded in the regular
classroom.
RPT Intervention Procedure
See RPT-PI Handout 4

Pairs work together for 20 minutes
One student in pair designated as “teacher”, the other is
designated as “student” for first 10 minutes.
 Reverse “teacher/student” roles for next 10 minutes

“Teacher” in pair presents a flash card with problem
(solution and problem computation steps shown on
back of flash card)
 “Student” in pair computes answer on a worksheet
divided into 4 sections: “try 1”, “try 2”, “help”, and
“try 3”. (See RPT-PI Handout 4)
 If “try 1” correct, “teacher” praises “student” and then
moves to next problem.

RPT Intervention Procedure (cont’d)

If “try 1” incorrect,
“teacher” gives “student” personal coaching suggestions and
prompts.
 “Student” computes problem in “try 2” section. If correct,
“teacher” praises “student” and then moves on to next
problem.


If “try 2” is incorrect,
“teacher” helps by computing problem in the box marked
“help” and explains what is being done at each step and
answers “student” questions.
 Teacher aides or parents available to help “teacher” if cannot
answer questions.


“Student” calculates problem again in “try 3” section,
copying the “help” section.
RPT Intervention Procedure (cont’d)

“Student” and “teacher” switch roles after 10 minutes and repeat
procedures.

At end of 20 minutes, Drill Sheet Administration:





All students complete drill sheets containing 16 problems individualized
at child’s math proficiency level
administered for a maximum of 7 minutes.
Students grade partners’ work using prepared answer sheets.
Students work together to calculate the total team score to
determine if the goal was met. If met, then session is designated
as a “win”
After 3 “wins”:


each member of the team is permitted to select a reward from a previously
generated reward list.
parents are notified with an “award certificate” and issue a home reward
for the win, which is noted on the “award certificate” and returned to
school to be posted.
Home Rewards Provided by Parents
(from Heller & Fantuzzo, 1991)
See RPT-PI Handout 5
Parent-child interactions
Movie, shopping, restaurant, arcade,
park, zoo, art show, skating
Money
$1.00, $2.00, $5.00
Food treats
Candy, baking cake with parent, choice
of meal at home
Toys
Baseball cards, doll clothes, video games
Increased time with friends Sleepovers, play dates
Personal items
Sneakers, key chain, jewelry, shirt
Home privileges
No chores, paint room, later bed time
Awards
Award banner made by parent
Other
Punishment reduced
Additional Best Practice RPT
Intervention Procedures

Periodically progress monitor math skill acquisition via
CBM





Student graphs progress
Students share graphs with parents
Flexible dyads and “teams” based on progress monitor
results; dyads and teams matched by skill levels; EXIT
students who reach grade level proficiency.
Periodically contact parents to obtain comments about
home components
Reward parents for coming to RPT sessions to assist or
observe


“Team”-made reward for parents
School recognition of service to students
Additional Best Practice RPT
Intervention Procedures (cont’d)



Measure student outcome with standardized
measure (e.g. WJ-III, math calculation subtest)
Conduct Treatment Integrity Check during
intervention – See RPT-PI Handout 8
Administer post-intervention (end of year)
acceptability and outcome surveys:


Student Survey – see RPT-PI Handout 6
Parent Survey – See RPT-PI Handout 7

“Wrap up” Parent Involvement Meeting at end of
year to celebrate successes!

See RPT-PI Activity 1 for Practice opportunities
About the RPT-PI Study
Heller & Fantuzzo, 1991
Reciprocal Peer Tutoring and Parent
Involvement (Heller & Fantuzzo, 1993)

Parent involvement in classroom intervention added
significantly to the effectiveness of reciprocal peer
tutoring for students identified as at risk for math
problems.

Sample of 80 4th & 5th grade students attending urban
public elementary school
African American; 50% male/50% female
85% eligible for free/reduced lunch
“At Risk” for math problems:





below 50th percentile on a standardized math achievement test
AND
Poor performance in math as rated by classroom teachers.
RPT and PI

“At risk” students were randomly assigned to
one of three conditions:
Reciprocal Peer Tutoring only (RPT)
 Reciprocal Peer Tutoring plus Parent Involvement
(participation in intervention; RPT_PI)
 Control Group (no treatment; CG)


No pre-treatment differences between groups
based on demographics or math achievement
levels.
RPT and PI: Study Measures
All study measures were administered pre and post
intervention, except the social validity measures that
were used only at post intervention.
1. Curriculum Based Computation Test (CBM):

Identified 3 skill levels from 2nd to 5th grade math.



Students placed at instructional level identified via CBM
Level criteria >40th and <75th percentile of level
CBM computation tests developed for each skill level.



Tests 20 minute duration
Accurate computation per minute (accuracy x speed)
High alpha reliability pre and post administration (.93)
RPT and PI: Study Measures (cont’d)
2. Stanford Diagnostic Mathematics Test, 3rd Ed. (SDMT) (Beatty,
Madden, Gardner, & Karlsen, 1986)
only.
Used computation subtest
3. Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS) (Hightower, Spinell &
Lotyczewski, 1989a)
Teachers rated 38 items to measure student school problem behaviors and competencies.
(A) School problems, 3 domains: (a) acting out, (b) shy anxious, and (c) learning skills
(B) Competence, 4 domains: (a) frustration-tolerance to limitations, (b) assertive social skills related
to self-confidence, (c) task orientation, and (d) peer social skills related to popularity among peers.
4. Child Rating Scale (CRS) (Hightower, Spinell & Lotyczewski,
1989a)
Students rated 24 items to measure student adjustment across 4 domains measuring self perceptions
about : (a) school conduct related to rule compliance and acting out, (b) anxiety/withdrawal due to
distress (c) confidence with interpersonal functioning, and (d) interest in academic activities.
RPT and PI: Study Measures (cont’d)
5.
Treatment Integrity


Observation and checklists to determine adherence to treatment conditions.
Random checks of 50% of sessions to assess implementation accuracy.
Students answered surveyed through questionnaire to determine procedural understanding of the
RPT intervention.
Parents telephoned to check on adherence to agreed upon home strategies and rewards.
6.
Social Validity


a. Student satisfaction –
evaluate overall participation, math progress, working with a partner, earning rewards.
b. Teacher satisfaction –
evaluate acceptability of methods, collateral effects of improved achievement on
behavior, desire to continue intervention, etc.
c. Parent satisfaction –
evaluate overall satisfaction with project, effect of project on child’s math perfromance,
impression of incentive system, feelings regarding frequent telephone communication,
and impressions of methods to increase parent involvement
Results of Study:
Treatment Integrity
Question: Was the intervention implemented as
planned?

Yes, observation checks showed student and staff
adherence to experimental conditions at 94%.



Student adherence in RPT only = 83%
Student adherence in RPT_PI = 86%
Parent adherence in PI


Rewards at home condition (26 parents) =100%
Parents observe in classroom (1/2 agreed, but only 8 did) = 62%
Parents assist in classroom (4 agreed, but only 1 did) = 25%
Results of Study: Math Achievement

Question: Did student math achievement improve, as
demonstrated by CBM?


Yes, improvement across all groups
Question: Were there differences between group
conditions related to increases in math achievement?

The percentage of students whose accurate computation rate increased by
50% or more were different among groups:




RPT+PI = 85% (22/26) – greatest gains
RPT only = 71% (20/28)
Control Group = 42% (11/26)
None of the RPT only or RPT_PI students increased accuracy by less than
10%. However, 19% (5/26) of the students in the Control Group only
improved by 10% or less during the 8 month period.
Results of Study: Math Achievement

Question: Did student math achievement improve, as
demonstrated by the SDMT?


Yes, improvement across all groups
Question: Were there differences between group
conditions related to increases in math achievement?

The percentage of students whose SDMT score increased by
10% or more were different among groups:



RPT+PI = 54% (14/26) – greatest gains
RPT only = 43% (12/28)
Control Group = 27% (7/26)
Results:
Teacher-Reported Student Adjustment

Did students improve in school adjustment
domains by the end of the intervention?

Yes, students in the RPT-PI group demonstrated
significantly fewer learning skill problems than students
in either the RPT Only and the Control Group.

Yes, students in the RPT-PI group demonstrated a
greater degree of confidence in interpersonal skills,
assertive social skills, and task orientation than either the
RPT Only and the Control Group.
Results:
Self-Reported Student Adjustment

Question: Did students self-reported social
adjustment improve?

At the end of the 8 month intervention period:

Both RPT_PI and RPT Only students reported to be
significantly more confident in interpersonal functioning
than did Control Group students.

No significant differences between any of the groups on
other measures of student adjustment.
Results of Study:
Student Satisfaction

Questions: Did students find the methods and
outcomes acceptable?-

Both the RPT Only and RPT_PI students rated the
intervention with high satisfaction (likert scale of 1 to
3, 3 being the highest satisfaction):




Intervention helped with math (mn=2.81)
Liked working with a partner (mn=2.50)
Liked earning rewards in school (mn=2.93.
A good idea to have family members help children in the
intervention (RPT_PI students = mn=2.69; RPT Only =
mn=2.32)
Results of Study:
Teacher Satisfaction


Questions: Did teachers find the methods and outcomes
acceptable?
Yes, overall the average teacher satisfaction rating for the
intervention was 3.50 (likert scale of 1-4, with 4 the
highest satisfaction)




Students benefits exceeded costs of teacher aide time (4.0)
Students improved math performance (3.6)
Improved classroom conduct (2.0)
Teachers expressed strong interest in continuing with
involvement with intervention (4.0)
Results of Study:
Parent Satisfaction

Question: Did parents find the methods and outcomes
acceptable?

Parents were interviewed after the intervention period




89% judged substantial improvement in child’s math skills
61% noticed positive changes in child’s attitudes towards school
90% of parents interviewed reported high overall levels of
satisfaction with the project and intervention.
Parents indicated an interest in participating again in the
following school year.
Summary of Findings
(Heller & Fantuzzo, 1993)

RPT-PI students as compared to either RPT Only or Control
Group students




Satisfaction:




Greatest gains in math achievement over the 8 month period.
Fewer learning skill problems
Greatest increase in positive prosocial skills
Students very satisfied and like idea of family members helping out
with intervention.
Teachers very satisfied with outcomes and rated students as having
improved math skills but no affect on classroom conduct
Parents very satisfied with outcomes and rated their children as having
improved math skills and better attitudes about school.
The primary parent involvement activity was issuing a home
reward for meeting the team goal in the math intervention.
Parents adhered to the home rewards plan 100% during the
intervention period!