Mathematics assessment is integral in enabling teachers to implement specially designed instruction for students with disabilities. This article presents an overview of an underutilized form of assessment, the clinical interview. A type of diagnostic assessment, clinical interviews are critically important when designing individualized instruction because the assessment provides information about how a student understands something or why a student is struggling. A rationale for its use is provided along with step-by-step instructions on how to implement a clinical interview to effectively document students’ strengths and weaknesses. The article concludes with an example of how a clinical interview can be used to directly inform instruction.
BoalerJ.HumphreysC. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
2.
CampioneJ. C.BrownA. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In LidzC. S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
CarpenterT. P.FrankeM. L.JohnsonN. C.TurrouA. C.WagerA. A. (2016). Young children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction in early childhood education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4.
CazdenC. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5.
Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
CrespoS.NicolC. (2003). Learning to investigate students’ mathematical thinking: The role of student interviews. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 261–268.
7.
GinsburgH. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
GinsburgH. P.DolanA. O. (2011). Assessment. In FennellF. (Ed.), Achieving fluency: Special education and mathematics (pp. 85–104). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
9.
GinsburgH. P.JacobsS. F.LopezL. S. (1998). The teacher’s guide to flexible interviewing in the classroom: Learning what children know about math. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
10.
GoldinG. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In KellyA. E.LeshR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–546). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
HarbourK. E.KarpK. S.LingoA. S. (2016). Inquiry to action. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49, 126–133. doi:10.1177/0040059916673310
12.
HengM.SudarshanA. (2013). Bigger number means you plus! Teachers learning to use clinical interviews to understand students’ mathematical thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 471–448.
13.
HodgesT.RoseT.HicksA. (2012). Interviews as RTI tools. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19, 30–36.
14.
HuntJ. (2015). How to better understand the diverse mathematical thinking of learners. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 20(2), 15–21.
15.
HuntJ. H.EmpsonS. B. (2015). Exploratory study of informal strategies for equal sharing problems of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 208–220.
16.
HuntingR. P. (1997). Clinical interview methods in mathematics education research and practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16, 145–165.
JacobsV. R.FrankeM. L.CarpenterT. P.LeviL.BatteyD. (2007). Professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning in elementary School. Journal for Researching Mathematics Education, 38, 258–288.
19.
JayanthiM.GerstenR.BakerS. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
20.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universal design for assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(2), 1–22.
21.
KoellnerK.ColsmanM.RisleyR. (2011). Multidimensional assessment: Guiding response to intervention in mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 48–56.
22.
LewisK. E. (2014). Difference not deficit: Reconceptualizing mathematical learning disabilities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 351–396.
23.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
26.
SantagataR.GuarinoJ. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM, 43, 133–145. doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0292-3
27.
SztajnP.ConfreyJ.WilsonP. H.EdgingtonC. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41, 147–156.
28.
TapperJ. (2012). Solving for why: Understanding, assessing, and teaching students who struggle with math. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
29.
TomlinsonC. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
