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.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
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
Implementation of RPT-PI
See RPT-PI Handout 2
for list of Implementation Procedures
About the RPT-PI Study
Heller & Fantuzzo, 1991
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):
2. Stanford Diagnostic Mathematics Test, 3rd Ed. (SDMT) (Beatty, Madden, Gardner, & Karlsen, 1986) Used computation subtest only.
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.
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
Question: Was the intervention implemented as planned?