We report on a practitioner implementation of Fusion, a first-grade mathematics intervention. Studies such as this evaluation of a loose implementation under realistic conditions are important to curriculum developers’ understanding of how evidence-based programs and tools work under a variety of implementation scenarios. In this quasi-experimental study, first-grade students (n = 253) in 10 schools were assigned to treatment (n = 154) or control (n = 99). Rather than randomly assigning students, schools assigned those students most at risk to treatment and, typically, those less at risk to control. School staff administered pre- and postassessments and led Fusion sessions approximately 30 min per day, 3 days per week. The intervention resulted in a significant positive effect on a researcher-developed first-grade math measure. The implementation of Fusion and feedback from school staff provided insights to guide the curriculum development process.
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.
AlonzoJ.TindalG.UlmerK.GlasgowA. (2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene: University of Oregon. Available from http://easycbm.com
3.
AndersonD.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2010). easyCBM® mathematics criterion related validity evidence: Oregon state test (Technical Report No. 1011). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Training, University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.brtprojects.org/publications/dl/1014
4.
BakerS. K.GerstenR. M.LeeD.-S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.
5.
BarnettW. S.JungK.FredeE. C.HustedtJ.HowesC. (2011). Effects of eight state prekindergarten programs on early learning. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.
6.
BarryA. E. (2005). How attrition impacts the internal and external validity of longitudinal research. Journal of School Health, 75, 267–270. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2005.tb06687.x
7.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR. M.ScammaccaN. N.ChavezM. 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. doi:10.1177/0741932507309712
8.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR. M.ScammaccaN. N.FunkC.WinterA.. . . PoolC. (2008). The effects of Tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 47–63. doi:10.2307/20528817
9.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.RobertsG.VaughnS.PfannenstielK. H.PorterfieldJ.GerstenR. M. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78, 7–23. doi:10.1177/001440291107800101
10.
BryantD. P.PfannenstielK. H.BryantB. R. (2014). Early numeracy intervention program. Austin, TX: Psycho-Educational Services.
11.
ClarkeB.BakerS. K.FienH. (2009). Foundations of mathematical understanding: Developing a strategic intervention on whole number concepts (FUSION). (Institute of Education Sciences, Mathematics and Science Education: Special Education Research, CFDA Num: 84.324A, 2009-2012, Funding Number: R324A090341, awarded $1,455,851). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=770
12.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.FienH.SmolkowskiK. (2016). A randomized control trial of a Tier 2 first grade mathematics intervention (Institute of Education Sciences [IES]: Special Education Research. NCSER-Mathematics, Efficacy and Replication, Goal 3, CFDA Num: 84.324, 2016-2020, Funding Number: R324A160046, awarded $3,498,258). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=1815
13.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.Strand CaryM.KostyD. B.BakerS. K.FienH.SmolkowskiK. (2014). Preliminary evaluation of a Tier-2 mathematics intervention for first grade students: Utilizing a theory of change to guide formative evaluation activities. School Psychology Review, 43, 160–177.
ClementsD. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for “research-based curricula.”Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35–70.
16.
ClementsD. H.AgodiniR.HarrisB. (2013, September). Instructional practices and student math achievement: Correlations from a study of math curricula (NCEE Evaluation Brief). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134020/pdf/20134020.pdf
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
CoyneM. D.Kame’enuiE. J.CarnineD. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
21.
DewaC. S.DurbinJ.WasylenkiD.OchockaJ.EastabrookS.BoydellK. M.GoeringP. (2002). Considering a multisite study? How to take the leap and have a soft landing. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 173–187. doi:10.1002/jcop.10001
22.
DoablerC. T.BakerS. K.KostyD. B.SmolkowskiK.ClarkeB.MillerS. J.FienH. (2015). Examining the association between explicit mathematics instruction and student mathematics achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 115, 303–333. doi:10.1086/679969
23.
DoablerC. T.FienH.NelsonN. 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
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
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493
28.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150
29.
GerstenR. M.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (Report No. NCEE 2009-4060). Princeton, NJ: What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED504995
30.
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
31.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (2003). Test of Early Mathematics Ability–Third Edition (TEMA-3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
32.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
HarwellM. (2012). Multisite studies and scaling up in educational research. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(2), 20–41.
35.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107
36.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2016a). Program announcement: Low-cost, short duration evaluation of education interventions (CFDA 84.305L). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/ncer_rfas/ncer_lcsd.asp
37.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2016b). Request for applications: Education research grants (CFDA No. 84.305A). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
38.
JordanN. C.LevineS. C. (2009). Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 60–68. doi:10.1002/ddrr.46
39.
MalteseA. V.HochbeinC. D. (2012). The consequences of “school improvement”: Examining the association between two standardized assessments measuring school improvement and student science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 804–830. doi:10.1002/tea.21027
40.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.WuQ. (2009). Five-year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0022219408331037
41.
MurrayD. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
42.
MurrayD. M.HannanP. J.PalsS. P.McCowenR. G.BakerW. L.BlitsteinJ. 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, 375–388.
43.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006). Response to intervention: A joint paper by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education and the Council of Administrators of Special Education (Joint paper). Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Council of Administrators of Special Education.
44.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s record card: A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading (No. NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
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.
National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12519
47.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2012). PISA 2012: What students know and can do—Student performance in mathematics, reading and science. Snapshot of performance in mathematics, reading and science. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-snapshot-Volume-I-ENG.pdf
48.
RiccominiP. J.SmithG. W. (2011). Introduction of response to intervention in mathematics. In GerstenR. M.Newman-GoncharR. (Eds.), Understanding RTI in mathematics: Proven methods and applications (pp. 1-16). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
49.
SAS Institute Inc. (2009). SAS/STAT ®9.2 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
50.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2011). Using curriculum-based measurement to monitor kindergarteners’ mathematics development. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 219–229. doi:10.1177/1534508411413566
51.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO.-M.JohnsonC.ZuoY.. . . CrevecoeurY. (2011). Effects of supplemental reading interventions in authentic contexts: A comparison of kindergarteners’ response. Exceptional Children, 77, 207–228. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001440291107700204
52.
SmolkowskiK.StryckerL.SeeleyJ. R. (2013). The role of research in evaluation of interventions for school-related behavioral disorders. In WalkerH. M.GreshamF. M. (Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders: Applications in schools (1st ed., pp. 552-566). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
53.
SoodS.JitendraA. K. (2013). An exploratory study of a number sense program to develop kindergarten students’ number proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 328–346. doi:10.1177/0022219411422380
54.
Van BelleG. (2008). Statistical rules of thumb (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jon Wiley.
55.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014, June13). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19
