Mathematics interventions aimed at accelerating the learning of students with mathematics difficulties (MD) should be developed through a design science approach such as the Curriculum Research Framework (CRF). Precision Mathematics is a National Science Foundation-funded DRK–12 Design and Development project focused on building mathematical proficiency with the critical concepts and problem-solving skills of early measurement and data analysis among first- and second-grade students with MD. The Precision Mathematics curriculum incorporates (a) technology-based activities that offer individualized opportunities for instruction and practice and (b) hands-on activities that promote small-group instructional interactions. Our production of the first-grade Precision Mathematics intervention was grounded in the CRF, which involves a series of iterative cycles of development, implementation field-testing, analysis, and revision. Results from initial implementation studies suggest that teachers and students can feasibly implement the first-grade Precision Mathematics intervention in authentic education settings. Challenges faced in developing technology-based mathematics interventions are discussed.
AgodiniR.HarrisB. (2010). An experimental evaluation of four elementary school math curricula. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 199–253. doi:10.1080/19345741003770693
2.
AndersonT.ShattuckJ. (2012). Design-based research a decade of progress in education research?Educational Researcher, 41, 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813
3.
AtkinsD. E.BennettJ.BrownJ. S.ChopraA.DedeC.FishmanB.…WilliamsB. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
4.
BakerS. K.GerstenR. M.LeeD. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73. doi:10.1086/499715
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.ParkJ. (2018). The concrete-representational abstract approach for students with learning-disabilities: An evidence-based practices synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 211–228.
7.
CarnineD. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130–141.
8.
CarnineD.JitendraA.SilbertJ. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 66–81.
9.
CarnineD. W.SilbertJ.Kame’enuiE. J.TarverS. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
10.
CawleyJ. F.FoleyT. E.HayesA. M. (2009). Geometry and measurement: A discussion of status and content options for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 7, 21–42.
11.
ChardD. J.BakerS.ClarkeB.JungjohannK.DavisK.SmolkowskiK. (2008). Preventing early mathematics difficulties: The feasibility of a rigorous kindergarten mathematics curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 11–20.
12.
ClarkeB.GerstenR. M.DiminoJ.RolfhusE. (2012). Assessing student proficiency of number sense (ASPENS). Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning Group, Sopris Learning.
13.
ClementsD. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for “research-based curricula.”Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35–70.
ConfreyJ.MaloneyA.NguyenK.LeeK. S.PanorkouN.CorleyD.…GibsonT. (2012). TurnOnCCMath.net Learning Trajectories for the K-8 Common Core Math Standards. Retrieved fromhttp://turnonccmath.net/index.php
16.
CoyneM. D.Kame’enuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
DiamondK. E.PowellD. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for head start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 75–93. doi:10.1177/1053815111400416
18.
DixonB.CarnineD. (1993). The hazards of poorly designed instructional tools. Learning Disabilities Forum, 18, 18–22.
19.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.FienH.BakerS.KostyD.Strand CaryM. (2015a). The science behind curriculum development and evaluation: Taking a design science approach in the production of a tier 2 mathematics curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 97–111.
20.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.NelsonN. J.FienH. (2015b) Precision Mathematics: Using interactive gaming technology to build student proficiency in the foundational concepts and problem solving skills of measurement and data analysis. (National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings, Discovery Research K-12, NSF 13-601, Funding Number: 1503161, Award: 2015-2019, $2,999,702).
21.
DoablerC. T.FienH.Nelson WalkerN. J.BakerS. K. (2012). Evaluating three elementary mathematics programs for presence of eight research-based instructional design principles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 200–211. doi:10.1177/0731948712438557
22.
DonovanM. S.BransfordJ. D. (Eds.). (2004). How students learn: History, mathematics and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23.
DynarskiM.AgodiniR.HeavisideS.NovakT.CareyN.CampuzanoL.…SussexW. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort(Report to Congress No. NCEE 2007–4005). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
24.
DysonN. I.JordanN. C.GluttingJ. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 166–181. doi:10.1177/0022219411410233
FryeD.BaroodyA. J.BurchinalM.CarverS. M.JordanN. C.McDowellJ. (2013). Teaching math to young children: A practice guide(No. NCEE 2014-4005). Washington, DC: National Center for Education and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/early_math_pg_111313.pdf
27.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
28.
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, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
29.
GerstenR. M.Newman-GoncharR. (2010). RtI in mathematics. In GloverT. A.VaughnS. (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 187–202). New York: Guilford Publications.
30.
GerstenR.ClarkeB.JordanN. C.Newman-GoncharR.HaymondK.WilkinsC. (2012). Universal screening in mathematics for the primary grades: Beginnings of a research base. Exceptional Children, 78, 423–445.
31.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.
32.
GerstenR. M.RolfhusE.ClarkeB.DeckerL. E.WilkinsC.DiminoJ. (2015). Intervention for first graders with limited number knowledge: Large-scale replication of a randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 516–546. doi:10.3102/0002831214565787
33.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.
34.
HedgesL. (2018). Challenges in building usable knowledge in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11, 1–22.
35.
HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R.TherrienW. J.BensonS. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 140–148. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12142
36.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2018). Special education research grants: Request for applications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
37.
JitendraA. K. (2008). Using schema-based instruction to make appropriate sense of word problems. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring 2008, 20–24.
38.
JitendraA. K.Petersen-BrownS.LeinA. E.ZaslofskyA. F.KunkelA. F.JungP. G.EganA. M. (2015). Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The quality of evidence for strategy instruction priming the problem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 51–72.
39.
Kame’enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C. (1999). The architecture of instruction: Towards successful inclusion of students with disabilities: Adapting curricular materials for the inclusive classroom (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
40.
KiruE.DoablerC. T.SorrellsA.CoocN. (2018). A synthesis of technology-mediated mathematics interventions for students with or at risk for mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33, 11–33. doi:10.1177/0162643417745835
41.
LindoE. J.EllemanA. M. (2010). Social validity’s presence in field-based reading intervention research. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 489–499. doi:10.1177/0741932510361249
42.
McClellandM. M.CameronC. E.ConnorC. M.FarrisC. L.JewkesA. M.MorrisonF. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
43.
McKenneyS.ReevesT. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?Educational Researcher, 42, 97–100. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463781
44.
MetheS. A.HojnoskiR.ClarkeB.OwensB. B.LilleyP. K.PolityloB. C.…MarcotteA. M. (2011). Innovations and future directions for early numeracy curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 200–209. doi:10.1177/1534508411414154
45.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
46.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
47.
O’ConnorR. E.BeachK. D.SanchezV. M.BocianK. M.FlynnL. J. (2015). Building BRIDGES: A design experiment to improve reading and United States history knowledge of poor readers in eighth grade. Exceptional Children, 81, 399–425.
PowellS. R.DriverM. K. (2015). The influence of mathematics vocabulary instruction embedded within addition tutoring for first-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 221–233. doi:10.1177/0731948714564574
50.
RiccominiP. J.SmithG. W.HughesE. M.FriesK. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31, 235–252. doi:10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995
51.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SieglerR. S.AlibaliM. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.
52.
RyanR. M.RigbyC. S.PrzybylskiA. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 344–360.
53.
SaramaJ.ClementsD. (2004). Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 181–189.
54.
SchumacherR. F.Zumeta EdmondsR.ArdenS. V. (2017). Examining implementation of intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 189–199.
55.
SuperfineA. C.KelsoC. R.BealS. (2010). Examining the process of developing a research-based mathematics curriculum and its policy implications. Educational Policy, 24, 908–934. doi:10.1177/0895904809351690
