Preliminary evaluation of a Tier 2 mathematics intervention for first-grade students: Using a theory of change to guide formative evaluation activities

School Psychology Review

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 160-177

  Clarke, Ben ^a   Doabler, Christian T ^a   Cary, Mari Strand ^a   Kosty, Derek ^b   Baker, Scott ^c   Fien, Hank ^a   Smolkowski, Keith ^b  

^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: 84905023573     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
2. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to lowachieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-73.
3. Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333-339. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040901
4. Bransford, J., & Donovan, M. S. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In M. S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 397-420). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
6. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, 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, 20-32.
7. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R. M., Scammacca, N. N., Funk, C., Winter, A., & Pool, C. (2008). The effects of tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for
8. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Pfannenstiel, K. H., Porterfield, J., & Gersten, R. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78, 7-23.
9. Clarke, B., Baker, S. K., & Chard, D. J. (2008). Best practices in mathematics assessment and intervention with elementary students. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. V, pp. 453-464). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
10. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 234-248.
11. Clarke, B., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., Doabler, C. T., & Chard, D. J. (2011). The impact of a comprehensive tier 1 core kindergarten program on the achievement of students at-risk in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111, 561-584.
12. Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for "research-based curricula." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35-70.
13. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13.
14. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing America's Students for College & Career website: http://www.corestandards.org/ assets/CCSSI-ELA%20S tandards.pdf
15. Coyne, M. D., Kame'enui, E. J., & Camine, D. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Doabler, C., & Nelson-Walker, N. (2009). Ratings of classroom management and instructional support. Unpublished observation instrument, Center on Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
17. Doabler, C. T., Baker, S. K., Kosty, D., Smolkowski, K., Clarke, B., Miller, S. J., & Fien, H. (2013). Examining the association between explicit mathematics instruction and student mathematics achievement. Manuscript submitted for publication.
18. Doabler, C. T., Nelson-Walker, N., Kosty, D., Fien, H., Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., & Clarke, B. (in press). Examining teachers' use of evidence-based practices during core mathematics instruction. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
19. Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C., & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(2), 166-181.
20. Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 43-53.
21. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493-513.
22. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2013). Intervention effects for students with comorbid forms of learning disability: Understanding the needs of nonresponders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 534-548.
23. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. O. (2008). Response to intervention: A strategy for the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: 1DE1A 2004 and beyond (pp. 115-135). New York: Springer.
24. Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C, Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Bryant, J. D. (2010). The contributions of numerosity and domain-general abilities to school readiness. Child Development, 81, 1520-1533.
25. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4-15.
26. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18-28.
27. Gersten, R. M., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., March, L., Star, J. R., & Witzei, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RT1) for elementary and middle schools (Practice Guide Report No. NCEE 2009 -4060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
28. Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd.
29. Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526-540.
30. Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
31. Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615-627.
32. Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford Achievement Test [SAT-10]. San Antonio, TX: author.
33. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (2004).
34. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
35. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
36. MacKinnon, D. P., & Luecken, L. J. (2008). How and for whom? Mediation and moderation in health psychology. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 27, S99-S100.
37. Milgram, R. J., & Wu, H. S. (2005). The key topics in a successful math curriculum. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from http://math.berkeley.edu/∼wu/
38. 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, 306-321.
39. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: author.
40. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). NAEP 2013 mathematics: Report card for the nation and the states. Washington, D. C: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). 2013 NCTM legislative platform. Reston, VA: author.
42. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
43. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children leant mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee.
44. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths towards excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008 (NSB 08-01 [volume 1] and NSB 08-01A [volume 2]). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
46. 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, Center on Instruction.
47. Obama, B. H. (2013, February 12). Obama's state of the union. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com
48. Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 27-59. doi: 10.1111/j. 1540-5834.1996.tb00536.x
49. Rolfhus, E., Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Decker, L., Wilkins, G, & Dimino, J. (2012). An evaluation of Number Rockets: A Tier 2 intervention for grade 1 students at risk for difficulties in mathematics (NCEE 2012-4007). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
50. Rothman, A. J. (2013). Exploring connections between moderators and mediators: Commentary on subgroup analyses in intervention research. Prevention Science, 14, 189-192.
51. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
52. Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: The Guilford Press.
53. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Sood, S., & Jitendra, A. (2013). An exploratory study of number sense program to develop kindergarten students number proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 328-346.
55. Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2008). Sociocultural influences on young children's mathematical knowledge. In Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on mathematics in early childhood education (pp. 253-276). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
56. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.
57. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klinger, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11-27). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
58. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2010). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 113-142). New York: Guilford Press.
59. Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70-77.
60. What Works Clearinghouse. (2011). What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (version 2.1). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
61. Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., & Schneider, E. (2008). Implementing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 270-276.
62. Woodcock, R. M., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
63. Wu, H. (1999). Basic skills versus conceptual understanding. American Educator, 23(3), 14-19.