1 / 25

Today’s Agenda

Recent Research in Math Interventions: Implications for Practice A Webinar Sponsored by The Special Education Strand of the Center on Instruction Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts The University of Texas at Austin September 14, 2007.

brian
Download Presentation

Today’s Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recent Research in Math Interventions: Implications for PracticeA Webinar Sponsored by The Special Education Strand of the Center on InstructionVaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language ArtsThe University of Texas at AustinSeptember 14, 2007 Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  2. The Center on Instruction is operated by RMC Research Corporation in partnership with the Florida Center for Reading Research at Florida State University; RG Research Group; Horizon Research, Inc., the Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the University of Houston; and the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin.The contents of this PowerPoint were developed under cooperative agreement S283B050034 withthe U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarilyrepresent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should notassume endorsement by the Federal Government.2007 The Center on Instruction requests that no changes be made to the content or appearance of this product.To download a copy of this document, visit www.centeroninstruction.org Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  3. Today’s Agenda • Introduction (Dr. Nancy Scammacca) • Overview of the synthesis (Dr. Scott Baker) • Update on Math Intervention Research (Dr. Russell Gersten) • Question and Answer Session • Evaluation Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  4. A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students Scott K. Baker Russell Gersten Dae-Sik Lee Presented by Dr. Scott Baker Director, Pacific Institutes for Research Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  5. Purpose • To synthesize experimental and quasi-experimental research on instructional approaches to improve the mathematics achievement of students struggling to learn mathematics Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  6. Method • Review of all published studies and dissertations between 1971 and 1999 • Conduct meta-analysis to identify trends in the literature Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  7. Inclusion criteria • 15 studies met the following criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: • Independent variable was math instruction or structured opportunities for students to apply math lesson objectives • At least 90 minutes of instruction during course of intervention • Appropriate experimental or quasi-experimental designs (pretest adjustments for quasi-experiments) • At least one math performance measure • Effect sizes could be calculated Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  8. Definition of low achieving • All studies provided definitions of low achieving • Performance on standardized or informal tests • Placement in remedial math classes • Receiving Title 1 services in math • Typically both teacher nomination / confirmation and performance measure used • Students with LD were included in 1/3rd of the studies but in those studies students with LD only constituted a small percentage of total number of students • If data on students with LD presented separately, students with LD were excluded from analysis Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  9. Search results • Studies clustered in four major categories aligned with research questions and intervention approaches: • Providing on-going feedback (data) to teachers and students about math performance (n = 5; 4 separate studies) • Peer tutoring / peer-assisted math instruction (n = 6) • Use of explicit or teacher-facilitated instructional approaches (n = 8; 7 separate studies) • Use of parents to support classroom math instruction (n = 2) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  10. Finding 1:Providing data to teachers and students • In 4 studies teachers and / or students were provided with specific data on student performance: • Teachers and students provided data (n = 5) d = .57* • Teachers provided data and recommendation (n = 1) d = .51 (ns) • One study that contrasted both: d = .29 for providing data; d = .51 data plus instructional recommendation (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Benz, 1994) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  11. Finding 2: Peer-assisted learning approaches • Students work in dyads • Role reciprocity • In some studies focus on computation; in others focus is on broader range of math topics • Math computation (n = 5) d = .62* • General math achievement (n = 2) d = .29 (ns) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  12. Finding 3: Teacher-led and contextualized teacher-facilitated approaches • Teacher-led instruction (n = 4): Explicit instruction in rules, concepts, principles, and problem-solving strategies; range of examples & discriminative practice; d = .58* • Contextualized instruction (n = 4): More recent studies focusing on real-world applications and underlying concepts of authentic problems;d = .01 (ns) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  13. Finding 4: Providing parents with information about student success • Parents received information about students in a peer-tutoring intervention (value added) (n = 2) • Regular contact by note or telephone • All examples were positive • Purpose was to encourage celebrations / reinforcement; parents were not teaching or tutoringd = .42 (ns) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  14. Students with LD vs. Low Achievers Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  15. Summary Meta-analysis suggests four findings / trends: • Providing teachers and students with specific information about performance enhances math achievement • Using peers as tutors or guides enhances achievement • Principles of explicit instruction can be useful in teaching math concepts and procedures • Providing parents with specific information about student success / progress may enhance achievement • Resource: National Center for Student Progress Monitoring (www.studentprogress.org) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  16. Questions? Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  17. Update on Research on Interventions for Low Achieving Students in Mathematics Presented by Dr. Russell Gersten Center on Instruction: Mathematics RG Research Group Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  18. Update On Explicit Instruction • Two new studies under explicit instruction • One RCT and one quasi-experiment • RCT had significant findings • Both demonstrated reasonable effect sizes Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  19. Recent Arrivals • Kroesbergen et al. (2004) – Effectiveness of Explicit and Constructivist Mathematics Instruction for Low-Achieving Students in The Netherlands • Effect size (g) = .569, p<.05 • On problem solving test used in Holland • Explicit outperformed constructivist and traditional in problem solving. Not fact fluency. Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  20. Recent Arrivals 2.Woodward & Brown (2006) – Meeting the curricular needs of academically low-achieving students in middle grade mathematics • Effect size (g) = 1.116, NS • On Terra Nova (high standard) • Contrasted Transition Mathematics to Connected Mathematics modules Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  21. Woodward and Brown (2006), cont. • Combined explicit instruction with peer work and student explanation of their reasoning • A reaction to poor performance of this population on earlier research on reform programs (Woodward & Baxter, 1997) • Numerous visual representations for place value in 3-digit addition. • Regrouping was taught via systematic use of expanded algorithms. • Daily practice on relevant mathematics facts and factoring Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  22. What We Learned • Systematic explicit instruction still seems to be the key to success… • BUT need not and probably should not be all drill and practice. • Sequencing of examples, clear exposition/expositions of strategies may be the lynchpins. • We desperately need more rigorous research with this group!!!!!!!!!!! Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  23. Other Recent Arrivals: RTI in Grade One 3. Fuchs et al. (2005) • RCT • Screened 41 classes in 10 schools to find • Sample using valid screening measures Effect Sizes (g) Concepts and App (2 measures) .441* Computation (2 measures) .414** Fact Fluency .18 NS Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  24. What is CRA? • Expeditious move from concrete to representational and abstract • Back and forth between abstract and visual representation • Results with LD: strong for algebra ( Witzel, 2003), weak for fractions (Butler et al., 2003) Funded by U.S. Department of Education

  25. Next Steps Open Discussion with Participants on: • Implications of findings • RTI • Visual representations • Building of fluency with basic arithmetic combinations Funded by U.S. Department of Education

More Related