This article discusses the theoretical framework, instructional design, formative assessment results, capacity for national distribution, and generalization of the Blending Assessment with Instruction Program (BAIP) model to other content areas such as science. The BAIP, developed and validated at the University of Kansas, employs technology to align instruction in mathematics with National Council of Teachers in Mathematics Standards. BAIP consists of three sets of Web-based resources that are available 24/7 for students and teachers in grades three through high school. Resources include 276 self-contained mathematic lessons structured around five frameworks (i.e., contextual, teaching, lesson, application, and extension); 417 independent online tutorials that provide immediate feedback to students; and a data reporting system that provides teachers with immediate feedback on student performance to facilitate instructional decision making. The materials are suitable for all learners, with particular emphasis on students with disabilities. Two years of field testing have been completed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallD. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449–466.
2.
BallD. L. (1991). Teaching mathematics for understanding: What do teachers need to know about subject matter? In KennedyM. M. (Ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners (pp. 63–83). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
3.
BallD. L.GoffneyI. M.BassH. (2005). The role of mathematics instruction in building a socially just and diverse democracy. The Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 2–6.
4.
BallD. L.HillH. C.BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?American Educator, 29(3), 14–22, 43–46.
5.
BorkoH.EisenhartM.BrownC. A.UnderhillR. G.JonesD.AgardP. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 194–222.
6.
BorkoH.WhitcombJ. A. (2008). Teachers, teaching, and teacher education: Comments on the national mathematics advisory panel's report. Educational Researcher, 37, 565–572.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Computerized Assessments and Learning, (2008). Stage one submission 2007–2008 formative assessment adoption list for South Carolina: CAL BAIP. Report submitted to the South Carolina Department of Education, Columbia, SC.
10.
CooneyT. J.ShealyB. E. (1997). On understanding the structure of teachers' beliefs and their relationship to change. In FennemaE.NelsonB. S. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 87–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
FennemaE.FrankeM. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York, NY: Macmillan.
12.
GrahamK. J.FennellF. (2001). Principles and standards for school mathematics and teacher education: Preparing and empowering teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 319–327.
13.
GrahamK. J.LiY.Curran-BuckJ. (2000). Characteristics of mathematics teacher preparation programs in the United States: An exploratory study. The Mathematics Educator, 5(1/2), 5–31.
14.
GreerD. (2007). Blending Assessment with Instruction Program (BAIP): Improving the math performance of fifth-grade students through implementation of research-based lessons and tutorials (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstract Database. (AAT 3274495)
15.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.
16.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 (2004).
17.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72, 217–234.
18.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
MasalskiW. J.ElliottP. C. (2002). Technology-supported mathematics learning environment: Sixty-seventh yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
22.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq. (2007).
23.
RichardsG. A. (2000). Why use computer Technology?The English Journal, 90(2), 38–41.
24.
SawchukS. (2010). NAEP board curbs special ed. and ELL exclusions. Education Week, 29(25), 1–13.
25.
SchaffhauserD. (2009). Which comes first—the technology or the pedagogy?T.H.E. Journal, 36(8), 27–32.
26.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
27.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
28.
StewartK. B. (2007). Blending Assessment with Instruction Program (BAIP): Impact on an online standards-based curriculum on 8th grade students' math achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstract Database. (AAT 3274526)
van GarderenD. (2008). Middle school special education teachers' instructional practices for solving mathematical word problems: An exploratory study. Teacher Education & Special Education, 31, 132–144.
32.
WileyH. I.ThurlowM. L.KleinJ. A. (2005). Steady progress: State public reporting practices for students with disabilities after the first year of NCLB (2002–2003). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota National Center of Educational Outcomes.
