scientifically based math interventions june 16, 2009 alabama spdg ms. abbie felder, director curtis...
TRANSCRIPT
Scientifically Based Math Interventions
June 16, 2009
Alabama SPDG
Ms. Abbie Felder, Director
Curtis Gage, Education Specialist
Alabama Department of Education
Georgia SPDG
Dr. Julia Causey, Director
Georgia Department of Education
Dr. Paul Riccomini
National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with
Disabilities
Clemson University
Drs. Judy and Howard Schrag
Third Party Evaluators
Alabama and Georgia
• What does the research say?
• Overview - Alabama SBR Math Interventions
• Evaluation of Alabama SBR Math Interventions
• Overview – Georgia SBR Math Interventions
• Evaluation of Georgia SBR Math Interventions
• Summary
• Open Discussion
Let’s examine the evidence:
SBR Math Interventions
Foundations for SuccessFoundations for SuccessNational Mathematics Advisory Panel
Final Report, March 2008
10
Presidential Executive OrderApril 2006
• The Panel will advise the President and the Secretary of Education on the best use of scientifically based research to advance the teaching and learning of mathematics, with a specific focus on preparation for and success in algebra.
11
Basis of the Panel’s work
• Review of 16,000 research studies and related documents.
• Public testimony gathered from 110 individuals.
• Review of written commentary from 160 organizations and individuals
• 12 public meetings held around the country
• Analysis of survey results from 743 Algebra I teachers
12
Two Major Themes• “First Things First”
- Positive results can be achieved in a reasonable time at accessible cost by addressing clearly important things now.
- A consistent, wise, community-wide effort will be required.
“Learning as We Go Along”- In some areas, adequate research does not exist.- The community will learn more later on the basis of carefully evaluated practice and research.- We should follow a disciplined model of continuous improvement.
13
Curricular ContentStreamline the Mathematics Curriculum in Grades PreK-8:
• Follow a Coherent Progression, with Emphasis on Mastery of Key Topics
• Focus on the Critical Foundations for Algebra- Proficiency with Whole Numbers- Proficiency with Fractions- Particular Aspects of Geometry and Measurement
• Avoid Any Approach that Continually Revisits Topics without Closure
14
Curricular ContentAn Authentic Algebra Course
All school districts:
• Should ensure that all prepared students have access to an authentic algebra course, and
• Should prepare more students than at present to enroll in such a course by Grade 8.
15
Curricular ContentWhat Mathematics Do Teachers Need to Know?
• For early childhood teachers:- Topics on whole numbers, fractions, and the
appropriate geometry and measurement topics in the Critical Foundations of Algebra
• For elementary teachers:- All topics in the Critical Foundations of Algebra and
those topics typically covered in an introductory Algebra course
• For middle school teachers:- The Critical Foundations of Algebra- All of the Major Topics of School Algebra
16
Learning Processes
Scientific Knowledge on Learning and Cognition Needs to be Applied to the Classroom to Improve Student Achievement:
• Most children develop considerable knowledge of mathematics before they begin kindergarten.
• Children from families with low incomes, low levels of parental education, and single parents often have less mathematical knowledge when they begin school than do children from more advantaged backgrounds. This tends to hinder their learning for years to come.
• There are promising interventions to improve the mathematical knowledge of these young children before they enter kindergarten.
17
• Limitations in the ability to keep many things in mind (working-memory) can hinder mathematics performance.
- Practice can offset this through automatic recall, which results in less information to keep in mind and frees attention for new aspects of material at hand.
- Learning is most effective when practice is combined with instruction on related concepts.
- Conceptual understanding promotes transfer of learning to new problems and better long-term retention.
Learning Processes• To prepare students for Algebra, the curriculum must simultaneously develop conceptual understanding, computational fluency, factual knowledge and problem solving skills.
18
Learning Processes
Children’s goals and beliefs about learning are related to their mathematics performance.
• Children’s beliefs about the relative importance of effort and ability can be changed.
• Experiential studies have demonstrated that changing children’s beliefs from a focus on ability to a focus on effort increases their engagement in mathematics learning, which in turn improves mathematics outcomes.
19
Instructional Practices
• All-encompassing recommendations that instruction should be student-centered or teacher-directed are not supported by research.
Instructional practice should be informed by high quality research, when available, and by the best professional judgment and experience of accomplished classroom teachers.
Research on students who are low achievers, have difficulties in mathematics, or have learning disabilities related to mathematics tells us that the effective practice includes:
• Explicit methods of instruction available on a regular basis
• Clear problem solving models
• Carefully orchestrated examples/ sequences of examples.
• Concrete objects to understand abstract representations and notation.
• Participatory thinking aloud by students and teachers.
Instructional Practices
20
21
For More Information
Please visit us online at:
http://www.ed.gov/MathPanel
Mathematical Proficiency Defined
National Research Council (2002) defines proficiency as:
1. Understanding mathematics
2. Computing Fluently
3. Applying concepts to solve problems
4. Reasoning logically
5. Engaging and communicating with mathematics
Grous and Ceulla (2000) reported the following can increase student learning and have a positive effect on student achievement:
• Increasing the extent of the students’ opportunity to learn (OTL) mathematics content.
• Focusing instruction on the meaningful development of important mathematical ideas.
• Providing learning opportunities for both concepts and skills by solving problems.
• Giving students both an opportunity to discover and invent new knowledge and an opportunity to practice what they have learned.
•Incorporating intuitive solution methods, especially when combined with opportunities for student interaction and discussion.
• Using small groups of students to work on activities, problems, and assignments (e.g., small groups, Davidson, 1985; cooperative learning, Slavin, 1990; peer assisted learning and tutoring, Baker, et al., 2002).
• Whole-class discussion following individual and group work.
• Teaching math with a focus on number sense that encourages students to become problem solvers in a wide variety of situations and to view math as important for thinking.
• Use of concrete materials on a long-term basis to increase achievement and improve attitudes toward math.
Alabama SBR Math SPDG-Supported Activities
GOAL 1: Through the implementation of SBR instructional strategies within the framework, there will be a 20 percent reduction in the achievement gap between students with and without disabilities in the area of math and age appropriate progress in pre-literacy/reading and math.
MATH INITIATIVE
2008-2009
Alabama State Department
• 12 school districts participated in 2007-2008. An additional 4 school districts participated in 2008-2009 (16 total).
• 31 schools participated in 2007-08, and 42 schools participated in 2008-2009—including 11 new schools.
• 170 teachers participated in 2007-08, and 281 participated during 2008-2009—including 68 new teachers.
• Over 7700 students were entered into VPORT, with 4,659 students having two data points in at least one Vmath assessment so far in the 2008-2009 school year.
• Of those with two data points, 838 were indicated as special education students.
Overview
Voyager Expanded Learning Math Intervention Program:
• A targeted, systematic program that provided students more opportunity and support to learn mathematics.
• Vmath is informed by Curriculum-Based Measurement and provides daily, direct, systematic instruction in essential skills needed to reduce achievement gaps and accelerate struggling math students to reach and maintain grade-level performance.
• V-math is designed to complement all major math programs by providing an additional 30-40 minutes of daily, targeted concept, skill, and problem-solving development.
• Each level of Vmath contains 10 individual modules covering the basic strands of elementary mathematics.
• The content of these modules is aligned with grade-level expectations for the NCTM Content Standards.
5 Keys to Successful VMath Implementation:
1. Amount of Instruction
• 5 days per week; 40 minutes per day
• One lesson per day (some lessons will be l l/2 to 2 days, if time is less than 40 minutes or students need extra time).
• Start within 4 weeks of school start data.
2. Use of Assessments
• Initial Assessment prior to instruction at the beginning of the year
• Computational Fluency Benchmark Assessments 3 times per year.
• Computational Fluency Progress Monitoring Assessments mid-module.
• Pre-Tests and Post Tests: Beginning and end of each module.
• Final Assessment after instruction at the end of the year.
3. Quality of Instruction
• 3 hours of initial training on using scripted dialogue to scaffold instruction implementing small-group instruction, administering assessments, using VmathLive, and using VPORT.
• Principal/Coach reviews teacher instruction, teacher completes self-analysis.
4. Differentiation
• Small group instruction
• Use Initial Assessments and PRE-Tests to identify strengths and weaknesses in math content.
• Differentiate instruction using VmathLive.
5. Classroom Management
• Small group area identified; Vmath scheduled.
• Overhead projector; Smartboard or teacher computer with projector available to teach lessons.
• Web-accessible computers for VmathLive designated.
Evaluation of VMath
I. Process Evaluation
1. Classroom visitations to gather on-going implementation data during Year 2 of the SPDG.
• 88% of the Classrooms implemented VMath 5 days a week (12% - Not Available)
• Number of minutes per day of VMath: 30 minutes: 59%; 37.5 – 4%; 45 minutes – 18%; less than 45 minutes – 8% (11% - Not Available)
• Group size: 1-6 – 65%; 7-12 – 14%; 13 – 7% (Not Available – 13%)
• Delivery Approach: 55% - In-class; 21% - Pull-Out; Specialist pull/push – 13% (11% - Not Available).
2. Progress Monitoring
• Initial Assessment prior to instruction at the beginning of the year
• Computational Fluency Benchmark Assessments 3 times per year.
• Computational Fluency Progress Monitoring Assessments mid-module.
• Pre-Tests and Post Tests: Beginning and end of each module.
• Final Assessment after instruction at the end of the year.
II. Outcome Evaluation
Student Math Achievement Scores on State Testing – Statewide
Longitudinal Assessment of Participating Students with Disabilities
Third Grade Computational Fluency
• On average, Third Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 18.9 to 51.7.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 92% to 44%.
Third Grade Modules
Module Name N Module Name N M1 Whole Numbers 425 M6 Decimals 131M2 Adding Whole Numbers 396 M7 Fractions 175
M3 Subtracting Whole Numbers 369 M8 Data, Probability, & Statistics 1
M4 Multiplying Whole Numbers 362 M9 Geometry 61M5 Dividing Whole Numbers 290 M10 Measurement 7
Third Grade Computational FluencySpecial Education Students
• On average, Third Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 15.7 to 37.7.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 96% to 72%.
Third Grade ModulesSpecial Education Students
Module Name N Module Name N M1 Whole Numbers 425 M6 Decimals 131M2 Adding Whole Numbers 396 M7 Fractions 175
M3 Subtracting Whole Numbers 369 M8 Data, Probability, & Statistics 1
M4 Multiplying Whole Numbers 362 M9 Geometry 61M5 Dividing Whole Numbers 290 M10 Measurement 7
Fourth Grade Computational Fluency
• On average, Fourth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 37.5 to 56.4.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 35% to 19%.
Fourth Grade Modules
Module Name N Module Name N
M1 Whole Numbers 440 M6 Number Theory 170
M2 Adding Whole Numbers 411 M7 Fractions and Percent 97
M3 Multiplying Whole Numbers 419 M8
Data, Probability, & Statistics 44
M4 Dividing Whole Numbers 314 M9 Geometry 1M5 Decimals 76 M10 Measurement 1
Fourth Grade Computational FluencySpecial Education Students
• On average, Fourth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 25.6 to 40.2.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 62% to 51%.
Fourth Grade ModulesSpecial Education Students
Module Name N Module Name N
M1 Whole Numbers 111 M6 Number Theory 21
M2 Adding Whole Numbers 94 M7 Fractions and Percent 4
M3 Multiplying Whole Numbers 104 M8
Data, Probability, & Statistics
M4 Dividing Whole Numbers 80 M9 Geometry M5 Decimals 26 M10 Measurement
Fifth Grade Computational Fluency
• On average, Fifth Grade students have increased their Computational Fluency scores from 31.9 to 37.9.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency increased from 3% to 6%.
Fifth Grade Modules
Module Name N Module Name N
M1 Whole Numbers 312 M6 Multiplying Fractions 42
M2 Adding and Subtracting Decimals 289 M7 Percent 30
M3 Multiplying and Dividing Decimals 235 M8
Data, Probability, & Statistics 27
M4 Number Theory 128 M9 Geometry 69
M5 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 100 M10 Measurement 8
Fifth Grade Computational FluencySpecial Education Students
• On average, Fifth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 29.5 to 35.6.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency increased from 5% to 12%.
Fifth Grade ModulesSpecial Education Students
Module Name Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers 92 M6 Multiplying Fractions 13
M2 Adding and Subtracting Decimals 70 M7 Percent 1
M3 Multiplying and Dividing Decimals 57 M8
Data, Probability, & Statistics 3
M4 Number Theory 30 M9 Geometry 16
M5 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 32 M10 Measurement
Sixth Grade Computational Fluency
• On average, Sixth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 41.5 to 51.5.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 23% to 16%.
Sixth Grade Modules
Module Name N Module Name N
M1 Decimals 325 M6 Geometry 32
M2 Number Theory 287 M7 Measurement 10
M3 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 277 M8
Data, Probability, & Statistics 10
M4 Multiplying & Dividing Fractions 220 M9 Per-Algebra 2
M5 Ratio, Proportion, and Percent 117 M10 Integers 5
Sixth Grade Computational FluencySpecial Education Students
• On average, Sixth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 39.2 to 42.6.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency increased from 31% to 34%.
Sixth Grade ModulesSpecial Education Students
Module Name Module Name
M1 Decimals 54 M6 Geometry 10
M2 Number Theory 61 M7 Measurement 1
M3 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 52 M8
Data, Probability, & Statistics 8
M4 Multiplying & Dividing Fractions 53 M9 Per-Algebra
M5 Ratio, Proportion, and Percent 29 M10 Integers
Seventh Grade Computational Fluency
• On average, Seventh Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 33.3 to 47.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 65% to 47%.
Seventh Grade Modules
Module Name N Module Name N
M1 Decimals 343 M6 Per-Algebra 0
M2 Number Theory 287 M7 Geometry 10
M3 Integers 268 M8 Measurement 0
M4 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 187 M9
Ratio, Proportion, and Percent 11
M5 Multiplying and Dividing Fractions 96 M10
Data, Probability, & Statistics 2
Seventh Grade Computational FluencySpecial Education Students
• On average, Seventh Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 34.1 to 46.8.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 57% to 48%.
Seventh Grade ModulesSpecial Education Students
Module Name Module Name
M1 Decimals 51 M6 Per-Algebra
M2 Number Theory 41 M7 Geometry
M3 Integers 36 M8 Measurement
M4 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 20 M9
Ratio, Proportion, and Percent
M5 Multiplying and Dividing Fractions 9 M10
Data, Probability, & Statistics
Eighth Grade Computational Fluency
• On average, Eighth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 28.8 to 35.4.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 11% to 7%.
Eighth Grade Modules
Module Name N Module Name N
M1 Integers 217 M6 Geometry 57
M2 Rational Numbers 235 M7 Measurement 18
M3 Exponents and Square Roots 176 M8 Data, Probability, & Statistics
M4 Ratio, Proportion, and Percent 146 M9 Coordinate Geometry
M5 Expressions and Equations 93 M10 Inequalities
Eighth Grade Computational FluencySpecial Education Students
• On average, Eighth Grade students increased their Computational Fluency scores from 28.8 to 35.4.
• The percent of students needing intensive focus on computational fluency decreased from 20% to 14%.
Eighth Grade ModulesSpecial Education Students
Module Name Module Name
M1 Integers 55 M6 Geometry 17
M2 Rational Numbers 44 M7 Measurement 9
M3 Exponents and Square Roots 39 M8 Data, Probability, & Statistics
M4 Ratio, Proportion, and Percent 28 M9 Coordinate Geometry
M5 Expressions and Equations 22 M10 Inequalities
Transitional Math
Four school improvement schools were selected during Year 2 for implementation of Transitional Math: One high school in Butler County - Greenville One high school in Elmore County - Stanhope Two high schools in Montgomery County – Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee
The four participating schools received eight days of technical assistance a month from two consultants from SOPRIS West.
Transitional Mathematics is designed to help students understand operations on whole numbers conceptually and addresses the needs of struggling students who have scored at or below the 40th percentile on national math tests.
Transitional Mathematics is based on three broad design principals;
1. Ensuring that students have relevant background knowledge.
2. Using a balanced approach in computational practice.
3. Addressing the need for careful time management.
I. Process Evaluation
The Transitional Math program uses curriculum based student progress monitoring, which services as a fidelity tool. In August 2009, the TransMath Online Assessment System will be launched as:
1. Individualized student placement based on student’s mastery of foundational math skills.
2. Ongoing assessment to inform instruction and measure student progress
Stanhope Elmore High SchoolComparison (Dec/May)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Stude
nt l
Stude
nt 2
Stude
nt 3
Stude
nt 4
Stude
nt 5
Stude
nt 6
Stude
nt 7
Stude
nt 8
Stude
nt 9
Stude
nt 10
Stude
nt 11
Stude
nt 12
Stude
nt 13
Stude
nt 14
Stude
nt 15
Stude
nt 16
Stude
nt 17
Stude
nt 18
Stude
nt 19
Stude
nt 20
Stude
nt 21
Stude
nt 22
Stude
nt 23
Stude
nt 24
Stude
nt 25
Stude
nt 26
Avera
ge
Series1
Series2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Stu
dent
l
Stu
dent
2
Stu
dent
3
Stu
dent
4
Stu
dent
5
Stu
dent
6
Stu
dent
7
Stu
dent
8
Stu
dent
9
Stu
dent
10
Stu
dent
11
Stu
dent
12
Stu
dent
13
Stu
dent
14
Stu
dent
15
Stu
dent
16
Stu
dem
t 17
Stu
dent
18
Stu
dent
19
Stu
dent
20
Stu
dent
21
Stu
dent
22
Stu
dent
23
Stu
dent
24
Stu
dent
25
Stu
dent
26
Stu
dent
27
Stu
dent
28
Stu
dent
29
Stu
dent
30
Stu
dent
31
Stu
dent
32
Stu
dent
33
Ave
rage
Series1
Series2
Jefferson Davis High School Comparison Comparison (Dec/May)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Stu
dent
1
Stu
dent
3
Stu
dent
5
Stu
dent
7
Stu
dent
9
Stu
dent
11
Stu
dent
13
Stu
dent
15
Stu
dent
17
Stu
dent
19
Stu
dent
21
Stu
dent
23
Stu
dent
25
Stu
dent
27
Pre-test
Post test
Greenville High School Comparison Comparison
(Dec/May)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80S
tudent
1
Stu
dent
2
Stu
dent
3
Stu
dent
4
Stu
dent
5
Stu
dent
6
Stu
dent
7
Stu
dent
8
Stu
dent
9
Stu
dent
10
Stu
dent
11
Stu
dent
12
Stu
dent
13
Stu
dent
14
Students Assessed
Perc
en
tile
Ran
k
Pre-Test
Post Test
Robert E. Lee High School Comparison Comparison (Dec/May)
II. Outcome Evaluation
Student Math Achievement Scores on State Testing – Statewide
Longitudinal Assessment of Participating Students
Lessons Learned/Next Steps
• The value of teacher coaching/support to ensure fidelity of instruction and data gathering.
• The importance of providing data driven instruction based on individual student needs.
Georgia SBI Math SPDG-Supported Activities
Math in Georgia
• SPDG Context–Georgia Performance
Standards rollout
–Dropout Prevention/Graduation Project
Georgia Performance Standards: Math
• Georgia Performance Standards– Integrated math curriculum: algebra, geometry, statistics – Aligns with recommendations from the National Math
Panel– New Math Standards
• Phase-in statewide: 2005-2011 – Grade 6 in 2005 --K-2 and 7 in 2006;– Grades 3-5 and 8 in 2007 --Grade 9 began last year– Full implementation: 2011
• Intensive statewide training for all math teachers – standards-based math instruction
– Implementation of the Student Achievement Pyramid of Interventions (RTI)
Georgia SPDG Goals
• Improve reading and math achievement
• Increase the number of students with disabilities who graduate with a general education diploma
• Decrease the number of students with disabilities ho dropout
• Improve Postsecondary outcomes
• Increase recruitment of fully certified special education teachers
• Increase parent support of pre-literacy, math, and social skills development for young children with disabilities
• Embed parent engagement within each goal
Georgia’s SPDG
• Focus is dropout prevention and increasing the graduation rate for students with disabilities
• Partnering with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities– Year 1: Data Analysis and Individualized Plans– Year 2: Training and Implementation
Georgia SPDG– Cohort 1 (2007-2009)
• 34 schools (15 HS, 18 MS)– High School with one or two feeder middle schools
– Geographically distributed throughout the state
– Content• Research-based dropout prevention strategies
• Partnership with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities
NDPC-SD Dropout PreventionIntervention Framework
Project Strands
79
Project Strands
80
Collaboration Coaches’ Duties
81
Attend to Essential Implementation Tasks
Essential Tasks to Facilitate In-school Implementation
• Identify team members for the school
• Participate in overview training
• Participate in data training
• Collect and analyze data
Essential Tasks to Facilitate In-school Implementation
• Examine causes and prioritize needs based on school and system data
• Participate in overview of effective practices that increase student engagement and school completion
• Select intervention framework that best matches prioritized need
• Develop a reasonable action plan
Essential Tasks to Facilitate In-school Implementation
• Provide training for appropriate school staff on the selected intervention
• Develop a timetable for coaching and feedback to ensure fidelity of implementation
• Establish checkpoints to evaluate implementation of intervention
• Communicate results of implementation
Schools Implementing SRB Math
• Improving math achievement priority = 10 schools• Lewis Frazier Middle School
• Midway Middle School
• Henry High School
• Henry Middle School
• Rutland Middle School
• Coffee High School
• Coffee Middle School
• Cook Middle School
• Manchester Middle School
Cohort 1 Baseline Data
• Georgia High School Graduation Test– Percent Passing Math
• 5-20 % = 6 High Schools
• 25-40% = 5 High Schools
• > 40 % = 2 High Schools
• Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test– Percent Passing Math
• < 20% = 1 Middle School
• 25-40% = 10 Middle Schools
• > 40% = 7 Middle Schools
Expanding the Training
• Ten targeted schools: math teachers and collaboration coaches trained
• Demand spread beyond SPDG schools• Expanded training beyond SPDG schools
– Open to any school stateside – Trained several hundred math teachers on strategies
for teaching students struggling in math– Follow-up webinars for interested participants– 2010-2011 school year: Follow-training will be
offered to participants from last school year
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs
Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions
Teacher Content & Instructional
Knowledge
100% Math Proficiency
89
Mathematically Knowledgeable Classroom Teachers Have a Central Role in Mathematics Education.
• Evidence shows that a substantial part of the variability in student achievement gains is due to the teacher.
• Less clear from the evidence is exactly what it is about particular teachers—what they know and do –that makes them more effective.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008)
Teachers and Teacher Education
Basis for Math Instruction1. Engaged Time**2. Student Success Rate3. Content Coverage & Opportunity to Learn4. Grouping for Instruction**5. Scaffolded Instruction**6. Addressing Forms of Knowledge7. Activating & Organizing Knowledge**8. Teaching Strategically**9. Making Instruction Explicit**10.Making Connections
Specific Instructional Strategies
1. Space learning over time
2. Interleave worked example solutions and problem-solving exercises
3. Connect and integrate abstract and concrete representations of concepts
4. Use quizzes to re-expose students to information
IES Practice Guide (2007). Organizing Instructional and Study to Improve Student Learning
Specific Areas Targeted
1. Computational Fluency2. Conceptual Development3. Basic Fact Automaticity4. Problem Solving &
Application5. Essential Vocabulary6. Student Success
Research on students who are low achievers, have difficulties in mathematics, or have learning disabilities related to mathematics tells us that the effective practice includes:
• Explicit methods of instruction available on a regular basis
• Clear problem solving models
• Carefully orchestrated examples/ sequences of examples.
• Concrete objects to understand abstract representations and notation.
• Participatory thinking aloud by students and teachers.
Instructional Practices
93 National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008)
Evaluation of SBR Initiatives
Formative Data
• Formative Data – Individualized based on each school’s focus priority– Used to guide implementation of the action plan – Collected for targeted at-risk student group
• Discipline Referrals• Reading Achievement• Math Achievement• Social Studies Achievement• Science Achievement • Attendance• English/Language Arts • Discipline Referrals
Summative Data
• All Cohort 1 Schools• Graduation Rate for Students with Disabilities and All Students (Collected Oct. 09)
• Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities and All Students (Collected Oct. 09)
Summative Math DataFor the 10 project schools with a math
focusCRCT Math Scores for Middle SchoolsGHSGT Math Scores for High Schools
Scores will be available late summer
Formative Data
• Specific to each school’s plan and interventions
• Examples:– Lewis Frazier Middle School: Transmath
• 18 % of targeted students passed CRCT Math 2008• 44% of the same targeted students passed CRCT Math
2009
– Liberty County High School: Transmath
• All targeted students with pre/post test data improved
Formative Data Examples
• Midway Middle School:
– 59 % of students with both pre/post test scores improved.
• Rutland Middle School: SuccessMaker Math Labs
– 59% of targeted students improved math grade level scores, ranging from .54 to 3.07
Formative Results Examples
COMPUTATIONOf the targeted group of
students:• 57% were SWD• 71% of all students
progressed from the Frustration to Instructional or Mastery Level
• 66% of SWD progressed from the Frustration to Instructional or Mastery Level
CONCEPTS/ESTIMATION
Of the targeted group of students:• 28% were SWD• 56% of all students progressed
from the Frustration to Instructional or Mastery Level
• 45% of SWD progressed from the Frustration to Instructional or Mastery Level
• Cook County Middle School: ASCEND Math Lab
Formative Data Examples
• Coffee County Middle School:– Saturday school with math focus
• Math vocabulary and fluency
– AIMSWeb for progress monitoring 6th and 8th gr.– Numeracy coaches– Strategies from SPDG training– Results for 24 sections of 6th grade math
• 79% of the sections had >50% of students with matched scores from January to March improved
Coffee County: Examining Teacher Practices
• Pilot Survey of 6th Grade Teachers – Use of 12 targeted strategies from Riccomini’s
training on differentiating in math– Six teachers participated in the survey– Twelve strategies/methods from the training
were identified on the survey
Instruction Methods/Strategies on Survey
• Grouping
• Scaffolded Instruction
• General Learning Strategies (Ex. RIDE)
• Math Vocabulary
• Spaced Instructional Review (SIR)
• Interleave Worked Example
• Writing about Math
• Graphic Organizers for Math
• Mnemonic Strategy
• Fluency
• Explicit Methods of Instruction
• Memory Strategies– Chunking & Keyword
Survey Results
Teacher Number Used In Last Unit
Number will Use Next Year
1 6 4
2 12 11
3 12 12
4 12 12
5 12 3
6 9 3
Average 10.5 7.5
2009 Statewide CRCT Results• 6th Grade All Students
– 75 % met/exceeded the standard– 6 percentage point increase from 2008– 15 percentage point increase since 2006– Exceeded state target
• 7th Grade All Students– 84 % met/exceeded the standard– 4 percentage point increase from 2008– 14 percentage point increase since 2006– Exceeded state target
• 8th Grade All Students– 70 % met/exceeded the standard– 8 percentage point increase from 2009– Exceeded target
Students with Disabilities
• CRCT Math Scores ‘08 to ‘09–More than a five percentage
point increase in math scores for grades 6, 7, and 8 for SWD
Students with Disabilities
• Georgia High School Graduation Test–Grade 11, first-time test takers–‘08 to ‘09 for SWD
• 63 % met/exceeded standards• 4 percentage point increase from 2008
Lessons Learned/Next Steps• Review of requirements for data collection to
better ensure uniformity
• Importance of continuing connection with general education statewide math initiatives
• Selection of new cohort of schools for Year 3
• Continued follow-up for cohort 1
• other
Open Discussion