Equity and Opportunity in Intervention Research—Intervention in Context: Introduction to the Special Series

Despite decades of intervention research on what works to improve the outcomes of students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009; Swanson et al., 1999), opportunity gaps and achievement gaps remain most pronounced for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties (U.S. Department of Education & National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Furthermore, CLD students are disproportionately present and underrepresented in intervention research (Artiles et al., 1997; Lindo, 2006; Pierce et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2012) and therefore experience inequities in both access and achievement outcomes.

Inequities in education access and outcomes for CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties have been an area of concern for decades. In their seminal work that looked at empirical studies involving students with learning disabilities over a 22-year period (1972–1994), Artiles et al. (1997) found alarmingly low rates of publications on identifiable diverse groups. Artiles et al. also found that the majority of these studies focused less on intervention but more on assessment, testing, and placement, and the studies lacked methodological rigor. Vasquez and colleagues (2011) replicated the work of Artiles et al. and found that although there were increases in the proportion of articles reporting ethnic minority information, gaps existed in the knowledge of evidence-based practices for CLD students with learning disabilities. Recently, Reed et al. (2012) argued that because of the scarcity of studies that included and/or reported participant characteristics or disaggregated findings by race and ethnicity, it was not possible to know whether evidence-based interventions were generalizable and valid for middle school–level CLD students with reading disabilities. The glaring paucities of CLD students with learning disabilities or difficulties in intervention research prompted the authors to call for more empirical studies that included CLD students, and to more intentionally attend to students’ sociocultural characteristics and backgrounds in the development, implementation, and validation of evidence-based practices.

In this special series, we underscore the calls for improving the quality and quantity of intervention research that includes CLD students with learning difficulties and learning disabilities. We have a specific focus in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and STEM-related intervention access and achievement for CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties. The turn of the 21st century brought with it the expectations for a differently trained workforce in STEM-related careers and the recognition of a severe shortage of talented and diverse persons to fill positions in those careers. The need for a diverse workforce that is skilled in science- and mathematics-related fields is ever rising, and the underachievement in these subjects among CLD students remains problematic for educators, researchers, and policy makers (Davis, 2014; Jackson & Wilson, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1997; Sorrells et al., 2014; Walker, 2007; Zilanawala et al., 2018). Too many CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties have yet to show significant and equitable achievement gains in mathematics and science, which is problematic considering that these students too represent an untapped, yet needed, talent pool that can contribute to the STEM workforce. It is imperative, therefore, to understand better how CLD students perform in mathematics and science and the extent to which they experience equitable opportunities and access to evidence-based interventions to improve academic achievement in these subjects.

Two papers included in this special series concern outcomes of CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties in the STEM-related area, namely, mathematics and science. The first paper by Powell, Urrutia, Berry, and Barnes explored the association between word problem solving performance and quality of verbal explanation of problem solution (e.g., accuracy in identifying the operation, accuracy in identifying the correct numbers within the problems, and types of vocabulary and terms) and how this association differed between English speakers (non-ELs) and English learners (ELs). Powell et al. pointed to an important issue related to math language acquisition and how fluency in math language can attribute to a deeper understanding of math concepts. The second paper is by Helman, Dennis, and Kern, who sought to examine the effects of a generative vocabulary strategy on improving science vocabulary performance of high school ELs with identified reading disabilities, a group of students who experience lowest academic performance and need particularly intensive support when it comes to improving their literacy skills. Helman et al. highlighted the importance and effectiveness of using strategy instruction in supporting ELs with reading disabilities in content areas such as science. With these two papers, we hope to propagate the cause for increasing empirically sound intervention studies for CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties. Without sound interventions commensurate with their unique needs and experiences, CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties face greater risks for poor performance and underachievement, dropping out, becoming incarcerated, and unduly suffering differentially and disproportionately poor societal employment, economic, and safety-wellness outcomes.

Reducing disparities in access and achievement outcomes in mathematics and science of CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties is another purpose for this special series. It remains imperative that the right services get to the right students in the right way. This series is our quest to extend the current efforts and discourses in mathematics and science intervention in hopes of developing a deeper understanding of how intervention reinforces or stagnates learning and achievement for CLD students with learning difficulties or disabilities. Toward this aim, two papers in this series examine diversity (i.e., race, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status [SES], geographical differences) and intervention in context (instruction, interventionist, instructional environs, to name a few).

Dennis, Sorrells, Chovanes, and Kiru used meta-analytical methods to examine the reality of math intervention studies for students with learning difficulties or learning disabilities. Their goal was to clarify what works, with whom, and by whom. The findings seemed to suggest that we are still uncertain how distinct student groups respond to evidence-based interventions, even when CLD students are reported in intervention research. Trainor and Robertson offered a conceptual framework by which to think about and conduct intervention research in context, as well as empirical studies of how students with disabilities who are from diverse contexts perform when given evidence-based interventions. From a historical perspective, the authors discussed the shift of terminologies (e.g., disproportionality, CLD, diversity), and how such a shift helps conceptualize the ways researchers design and implement intervention research for a goal of providing research-based equitable learning opportunities for children with disabilities. Trainor and Robertson urged researchers to carefully consider approaches in sample selection and description, as well as description of (a) the contexts in which the studies occur, (b) the researchers’ positionality, (c) interpretation and use of data when implementing intervention research, and (d) interpretation and dissemination of the research findings.

We are excited about this special series and the opportunity to publish three studies and a conceptual paper. This special series affirms similar past and current concerns of inequities in educational opportunities and outcomes for CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties. The contributors of this special series call for attention to improving the quality and quantity of intervention research in mathematics and science that is accessible and responsive for CLD students with learning difficulties or disabilities. We seek to (a) draw readers’ attention to STEM-related (science and mathematics) empirical studies that included CLD students with learning disabilities or learning difficulties and (b) offer a framework for future research considerations that result in greater equity and opportunity for all students in our intervention work. There is still much work to do in mathematics and science intervention research and practice. It is our intent and hope that these contributions in this special series will generate dialogues and ideas to answer questions such as “How do we build intervention research and theories of learning and development that foster equity in intervention research CLD students?” and “How do we address racial disparities and disability disparities in mathematics and science?” while we continuously pursue equity in education access, opportunities, and outcomes for all students.