Secondary students with persistent mathematics difficulties need the most intensive intervention in order to improve their mathematics outcomes. One approach to intensifying and individualizing intervention is through data–based individualization (DBI). The present study used a single–subject, multiple–baseline–across–participants, replicated–across–skills design to investigate the effectiveness of DBI process on mathematics computation and mathematics concept and application performance of high school students who had intense needs in mathematics. Results suggest the interventions guided by the DBI process improved mathematics computation and mathematics concept and application performance of the participants. Implications of these findings and indications for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllinderR. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum–based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62 (6), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606200604
2.
AllinderR. M., BollingR. M., OatsR. G., & GagnonW. A. (2000). Effects of teacher self–monitoring on implementation of curriculum–based measurement and mathematics computation achievement of students with disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 21(4), 219. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100403
3.
BarlowD. H., NockM., & HersenM. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
CalhoonM. B., EmersonR. W., FloresM., & HouchinsD. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 28(5), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280050401
5.
CoddingR., ArcherJ., & ConnellJ. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9
6.
ConnollyA. J. (2007). KeyMath–3 diagnostic assessment. London, UK: Pearson.
7.
DanielsonL., & RosenquistC. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data–based individualization. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522965
8.
DennisM. S., CalhoonM. B., OlsonC., & WilliamsC. (2014). Using computation curriculum–based measurement probes for error pattern analysis. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49 (5), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451213513957
9.
DennisM. S., SharpE., ChovanesJ., SmithA., CusterB., & ParkJ. (2016). A meta–analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31 (3), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12107
10.
FildermanM. J., TosteJ. R., DidionL. A., PengP., & ClemensN. H. (2018). Data–based decision making in reading interventions: A synthesis and meta–analysis of the effects for struggling readers. Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918790001
11.
FloresM. M., HintonV., & StrozierS. D. (2014). Teaching subtraction and multiplication with regrouping using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence and strategic instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(4), 75–88.
12.
FuchsL. S. (1987). Improving data–based instruction through computer technology: Continuation application. (Available from L. S. Fuchs, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.)
13.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta–analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300301
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & HamlettC. L. (1989a). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum–based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298905500506
16.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., HamlettC. L., & SteckerP. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum–based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003617
17.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & MaloneA. S. (2018). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918758166
FusonK. C. (1990). Conceptual structures for multiunit numbers: Implications for learning and teaching multidigit addition, subtraction, and place value. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 343–403.
21.
GerstenR., ChardD. J., JayanthiM., BakerS. K., MorphyP., & FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
22.
GleasonP., CrisseyS., ChojnackiG., ZukiewiczM., SilvaT., CosteloeS., et al. (2019). Evaluation of support for using student data to inform teachers’ instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20194008/pdf/20194008.pdf
23.
JonesE. D., & KrouseJ. P. (1988). The effectiveness of data–based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild learning handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11 (1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648801100102
24.
JungP., McMasterK. L., KunkelA. K., ShinJ., & SteckerP. M. (2018). Effects of data–based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta–analysis. Learning Disabilities Research &; Practice, 33(3), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12172
25.
KratochwillT. R., HitchcockJ. H., HornerR. H., LevinJ. R., OdomS. L., RindskopfD. M., et al. (2013). Single case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
26.
LinF., & KubinaR. M.Jr. (2005). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between fluency and application for multiplication. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-005-2703-z
27.
ManolovR., LosadaJ. L., Chacón–MoscosoS., & Sanduvete–ChavesS. (2016) Analyzing two–phase single–case data with non–overlap and mean difference indices: Illustration, software tools, and alternatives. Frontiers in Psychology7, 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00032
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data–based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education.
30.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
31.
ParkerR. I., & VannestK. J. (2009). An improved effect size for single case research: Non–overlap of all pairs (NAP). Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367.
32.
ParkerR. I., VannestK. J., DavisJ. L., & SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single–case research: Tau–U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.
33.
Pearson Education. (2004). GMADE – group mathematics assessment and diagnostic evaluation. London, UK: Pearson.
34.
Pearson Education. (2008). AIMSweb. London, UK: Pearson, Inc.
PowellS. R., & SteckerP. M. (2014). Using data–based individualization to intensify mathematics intervention for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914523735
37.
ShapiroE. S. (2007). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. In ThomasA. & GrimesT. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V. (pp. 141–157). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
38.
SteckerP. M., & FuchsL. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum–based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1207/sldrp1503_2
39.
SwansonH. L., HoskynM. & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. Guilford Press.
40.
TolarT. D., LederbergA. R., & FletcherJ. M. (2009). A structural model of algebra achievement: Computational fluency and spatial visualization as mediators of the effect of working memory on algebra achievement. Educational Psychology (29)2, 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802708903.
41.
VanDerHeydenA. M., & BurnsM. K. (2008). Using curriculum–based assessment and curriculum–based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503000302
42.
VaughnS., DentonC. A., & FletcherJ. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432–444.
43.
WittJ. C., & ElliottS. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In KratochwillT. R. (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
