The impact of a comprehensive tier I core kindergarten program on the achievement of students at risk in mathematics

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 111, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 561-584

  Clarke, Ben ^a   Smolkowski, Keith ^b   Baker, Scott K ^a   Fien, Hank ^a   Doabler, Christian T ^a   Chard, David J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955970938     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/659033     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Agodini, R., Harris, B., Atkins-Burnett, S., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., & Murphy, R. (2009). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings from first graders in 39 schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
2. Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered Response to Intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 362-380. doi: 10.1177/073428290502300405
3. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D.-S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51-73.
4. Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J., Kame'enui, E., & Beck, C. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing high poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18-37.
5. Barry, A. E. (2005). How attrition impacts the internal and external validity of longitudinal research. Journal of School Health, 75(7), 267-270.
6. Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 333-339.
7. Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Do instructional practices contribute to inequality in achievement? The case of mathematics instruction in kindergarten. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5, 301-322.
8. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M. M. (2008). Mathematics intervention for first-and second-grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of Tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 20-32. doi: 10.1177/0741932507309712
9. Bryant, B., Bryant, D. P., Kethley, C., Kim, S. A., Pool, C., & You-Jin, S. (2008). Preventing mathematics difficulties in the primary grades: The critical features of instruction in textbooks as part of the equation. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 21-35.
10. Burns, M. K., & Vanderheyden, A. (2006). Response to Intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 32, 3-5.
11. Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 130-141.
12. Chard, D. J., Baker, S. K., Clarke, B., Jungjohann, K., Davis, K., & Smolkowski, K. (2008). Preventing early mathematics difficulties: The feasibility of a rigorous kindergarten curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 11-20.
13. Clarke, B., Baker, S. K., & Chard, D. (2008). Best practices in mathematics assessment and intervention with elementary students. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 453-464). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
14. Clarke, B., Baker, S., Chard, D., Braun, D., & Otterstedt, J. (2006). Developing and validating measures of number sense to identify students at-risk for mathematics disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, Pacific Institutes for Research, Eugene, OR.
15. Clarke, B., Gersten, R., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2010). RTI in mathematics: Beginnings of a knowledge base. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 187-202). New York: Guilford.
16. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234-248.
17. Clements, D. H. (2004). Major themes and recommendations. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A. M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 7-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 35-70.
19. Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E.,... Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders' literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77-100. doi: 10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x
20. Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). Position on Response to Intervention (RTI): The unique role of special education and special educators. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno_ED499403
21. Crawford, L., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2008). Improving math programming for students at risk: Introduction to the special topic issue. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 5-8. doi: 10.1177/ 0741932507309685
22. Cribbie, R. A., & Jamieson, J. (2000). Structural equation models and the regression bias for measuring correlates of change. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 893-907.
23. Cross, C. T., Woods, T., & Schweingruber, H. (2009). Learning in early childhood: Paths towards excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
24. Doabler, C., Fien, H., Nelson-Walker, N. J., & Baker, S. K. (2010). Evaluating the instructional design elements of elementary mathematics programs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25. Donner, A., & Klar, N. (1996). The statistical analysis of kappa statistics in multiple samples. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(9), 1053-1058.
26. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P.,... Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
27. Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
28. Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 121-139.
29. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: IRA.
30. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 157-171.
31. Fuchs, L., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, B., & Hamlett, C. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493-513.
32. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C., & Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 311-330.
33. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K. N., & Hamlett, C. L. (2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students' math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 491-509.
34. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 13-24.
35. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 293-306.
36. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. O. (2008). A curricular-sampling approach to progress monitoring: Mathematics concepts and applications. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 225-233. doi: 10.1177/1534508407313484
37. Fuchs, L., Powell, S., Seethaler, P., Cirino, P., Fletcher, J., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 561-576. doi: 10.1037/a0014701
38. Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First impact study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
39. Geary, D. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4-15.
40. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., March, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
41. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18-28.
42. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities:Ameta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202-1242.
43. Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (1990). Test of early mathematics ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd.
44. Greenwood, C. R., Kratochwill, T. R., & Clements, M. (2008). Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. New York: Guilford.
45. Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 615-627.
46. Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1996). Stanford Early School Achievement Test (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
47. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107-128.
48. Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, subpart 614(6)(b) (2004).
49. Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M. C., Bhat, P., & Riley, T. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 91(6), 345-355.
50. Kaminski, R., Cummings, K. D., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Good, R. H. (2008). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills for formative assessment and evaluation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1181-1204). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
51. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics (pp. xvii, 454). Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee, National Research Council.
52. Kovaleski, J. F., & Black, L. (2010). Multi-tier service delivery. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 23-56). New York: Guilford.
53. Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial & Special Education, 24(2), 97-114.
54. Learning Disabilities Association/Division for Learning Disabilities. (2007, February). Learning disabilities: Basic principles of the concept, its identification, and service needs. Pittsburgh: Author.
55. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
56. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B.,... Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-288). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.
57. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004a). The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 46, 427-440.
58. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004b). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58(2), 127-137.
59. Milgram, R. J., & Wu, H. S. (2005). The key topics in a successful math curriculum. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/_wu/
60. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2009). Five-year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 306-321.
61. Murray, D. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press.
62. Murray, D. M. (2001). Statistical models appropriate for designs often used in group-randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine, 20(9/10), 1373-1386.
63. Murray, D. M., Hannan, P. J., Pals, S. P., McCowen, R. G., Baker, W. L., & Blitstein, J. L. (2006). A comparison of permutation and mixed-model regression methods for the analysis of simulated data in the context of a group-randomized trial. Statistics in Medicine, 25(3), 375-388.
64. National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). NASP position statement on identification of students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/about-_nasp/positionpapers/SLDPosition_2007.pdf
65. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006). Response to Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.
66. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment. Mathematics 2009 NAEP report. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
67. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/focalpoints.aspx?id_282
68. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2008). Curriculum focal points: Pre-K to kindergarten. A quest for coherence. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(6), 361-365.
69. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
70. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
71. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee.
72. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008 (Vol. 2). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
73. Newman-Gonchar, R., Clarke, B., & Gersten, R. (2009). A summary of nine key studies: Multi-tier intervention and response to interventions for students struggling in mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
74. Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. In R. Case, Y. Okamoto, S. Griffin, R. S. Siegler, & D. P. Keating (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (pp. 27-58). Chicago: Society for Research in Child Development.
75. Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2008). TIMSS 2007 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
76. Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to Intervention: Prevention and remediation, perhaps. Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 44-47.
77. Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
78. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Evidence-based outcome research: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.
79. SAS Institute. (2004). SAS/ETS 9.1 user's guide (Vol. 1). Cary, NC: Author.
80. Scanlon, D., Gelzheiser, L., Vellutino, F., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J. (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 346-359. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.002
81. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147-177.
82. Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2007). Lack of focus in the mathematics curriculum: Symptom or cause? In T. Loveless (Ed.), Lessons learned: What international assessments tell us about math achievement (pp. 65-44). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
83. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
84. Sood, S., & Jitendra, A. K. (2007). A comparative analysis of number sense instruction in reformbased and traditional mathematics textbooks. Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 145-157. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410030101
85. Van Belle, G. (2002). Statistical rules of thumb (pp. xviii, 221). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
86. Vanderheyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 225-256. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004
87. Van de Walle, J. A. (2001). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (4th ed). New York: Longman.
88. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A response to "Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention": Why response to intervention is necessary but not sufficient for identifying students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 58-61.
89. Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131.
90. Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery-revised. Chicago: Riverside.
91. Wu, H. (2009). From arithmetic to algebra. Paper presented at the Mathematicians Workshop Series Schedule, University of Oregon, Eugene.