Reciprocal Peer Tutoring with Parent Involvement RPT_PI

1
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

2
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 childrens achievement.

3
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.

4
Implementation of RPT-PI

• See RPT-PI Handout 2
• for list of Implementation Procedures

5
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.

6
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 gt40th and lt75th 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

7
Parent Involvement (PI) ComponentSee 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 childs 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 childs
  math intervention
• School Acknowledgement parents sometimes are
  unable to participate due to work commitments or
  other responsibilities, not due to lack of
  interest in childs education.

8
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.

9
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)

10
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 childs 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

11
RPT Group Intervention ProceduresSee RPT-PI
Handout 2

• Prior to starting intervention, students receive
  two 45-minute trainings about
• intervention procedures
• concepts about partnering and goal setting in
  instructional pairs.
• RPT Sessions are conducted
• 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.

12
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.

13
RPT Intervention ProcedureSee 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.

14
RPT Intervention Procedure (contd)

• 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.

15
RPT Intervention Procedure (contd)

• 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 childs 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.

16
Home Rewards Provided by Parents(from Heller
Fantuzzo, 1991)See RPT-PI Handout 5
17
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

18
Additional Best Practice RPT Intervention
Procedures (contd)

• 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

19
About the RPT-PI Study

• Heller Fantuzzo, 1991

20
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.

21
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.

22
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 gt40th and lt75th 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)

23
RPT and PI Study Measures (contd)

• 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.

24
RPT and PI Study Measures (contd)

• 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 childs math perfromance,
  impression of incentive system, feelings
  regarding frequent telephone communication, and
  impressions of methods to increase parent
  involvement

25
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

26
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
• RPTPI 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.

27
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
• RPTPI 54 (14/26) greatest gains
• RPT only 43 (12/28)
• Control Group 27 (7/26)

28
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.

29
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.

30
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 (mn2.81)
• Liked working with a partner (mn2.50)
• Liked earning rewards in school (mn2.93.
• A good idea to have family members help children
  in the intervention (RPT_PI students mn2.69
  RPT Only mn2.32)

31
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)

32
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 childs
  math skills
• 61 noticed positive changes in childs 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.

33
Summary of Findings (Heller Fantuzzo, 1993)

• RPT-PI students as compared to either RPT Only or
  Control Group students
• Greatest gains in math achievement over the 8
  month period.
• Fewer learning skill problems
• Greatest increase in positive prosocial skills
• Satisfaction
• 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!