Examining Teachers’ Use of Evidence-Based Practices During Core Mathematics Instruction

Abstract

The extent to which teachers implement evidence-based practices, such as explicit instruction, is critical for improving students’ mathematics achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the kindergarten Early Learning in Mathematics (ELM) curriculum on teachers’ use of explicit mathematics instruction in core educational settings. Observation data for the study were collected during a randomized controlled trial designed to investigate the efficacy of the ELM curriculum. A multifaceted observation system was used to examine teachers’ provision of high-quality and intensive instructional interactions during core mathematics instruction. A total of 379 observations were conducted in 129 classrooms (68 treatment and 61 comparison), involving approximately 2,700 students from 46 schools in Oregon and Texas. Results indicate that ELM classroom teachers delivered significantly higher rates of practice opportunities for individuals and groups of students compared with comparison classroom teachers who implemented standard district mathematics instruction. Implications for instruction are discussed.

Keywords

evidence-based practices core mathematics instruction explicit and systematic instruction instructional interactions treatment intensity observation systems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agodini

Harris

(2010). An experimental evaluation of four elementary school math curricula. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 199–253.

Archer

A. L.

Hughes

C. A.

(2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Baker

Fien

Baker

(2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1–20.

Baker

Gersten

Lee

D. S.

(2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.

Blackwell

A. J.

McLaughlin

T. F.

(2005). Using guided notes, choral responding, and response cards to increase student performance. International Journal of Special Education, 20, 1–5.

Bodovski

Farkas

(2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school: The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement, and instruction. Elementary School Journal, 108, 115–130. doi:10.1086/525550

Bryant

B. R.

Bryant

D. P.

Kethley

Kim

S. A.

Pool

You-Jin

(2008). Preventing mathematics difficulties in the primary grades: The critical features of instruction in textbooks as part of the equation. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 21–35.

Carnine

D. W.

Silbert

Kame’enui

E. J.

Tarver

S. G.

(2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Chard

D. J.

(2004). Maintaining the relationship between science and special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 213–217. doi:10.1177/00222194040370030501

10.

Cirillo

(2013). What are some strategies for facilitating productive classroom discussions? Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research_News_and_Advocacy/Research/Clips_and_Briefs/research%20brief%2020%20-%20strategies%20of%20discussion.pdf

11.

Clarke

Doabler

C. T.

Strand Cary

Kosty

Baker

S. K.

Fien

Smolkowski

(in press). Development and preliminary evaluation of a Tier-2 intervention targeting whole number concepts in first grade mathematics: Utilizing a theory of change to guide formative evaluation activities. School Psychology Review.

12.

Clarke

Smolkowski

Baker

S. K.

Fien

Doabler

C. T.

Chard

D. J.

(2011). The impact of a comprehensive Tier I core kindergarten program on the achievement of students at risk in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111, 561–584.

13.

Clements

D. H.

Agodini

Harris

(2013, September). Instructional practices and student math achievement: Correlations from a study of math curricula (NCEE Evaluation Brief ED-04-CO-0112/0003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

14.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Common Core State Standards. (2010). Common core standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

16.

Cook

B. G.

Cook

S. C.

(2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466911420877

17.

Coyne

M. D.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Carnine

D. W.

(2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

18.

Doabler

C. T.

Baker

S. K.

Kosty

Smolkowski

Clarke

Miller

S. J.

Fien

(in press). Examining the association between explicit mathematics instruction and student mathematics achievement. Elementary School Journal.

19.

Doabler

C. T.

Clarke

Fien

Baker

Kosty

Strand Cary

(in press). The science behind curriculum development and evaluation: Taking a design science approach in the production of a tier 2 mathematics curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly.

20.

Doabler

C. T.

Fien

(2013). Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics difficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 276–285.

21.

Doabler

C. T.

Fien

Nelson-Walker

N. J.

Baker

S. K.

(2012). Evaluating three elementary mathematics programs for presence of eight research-based instructional design principles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 200–211.

22.

Doabler

C. T.

Nelson-Walker

N. J.

(2009). Ratings of Classroom Management and Instructional Support (Unpublished observation instrument). Center on Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene.

23.

Englert

C. S.

Tarrant

K. I.

Mariage

T. V.

(1992). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 62–86. doi:10.1177/088840649201500203

24.

Fuchs

L. S.

Powell

S. R.

Seethaler

P. M.

Fuchs

Hamlett

C. L.

Cirino

P. T.

Fletcher

J. M.

(2010). A framework for remediating number combination deficits. Exceptional Children, 76, 135–156.

25.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention a decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150

26.

Gersten

Chard

Jayanthi

Baker

S. K.

Morphy

Flojo

(2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.

27.

Gersten

R. M.

Dimino

(2001). The realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 113–122. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00013

28.

Gottfried

A. E.

Marcoulides

G. A.

Gottfried

A. W.

Oliver

P. H.

(2013). Longitudinal pathways from math intrinsic motivation and achievement to math course accomplishments and educational attainment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 68–92. doi:10.1080/19345747.2012.698376

29.

Hedges

L. V.

(1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.

30.

Hudson

Miller

S. P.

(2006). Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning needs. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

31.

Kameenui

E. J.

Simmons

(1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

32.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Simmons

D. 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.

33.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310

34.

Landrum

T. J.

Tankersley

M. T.

(2004). Science in the schoolhouse: The uninvited guest. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 207–212.

35.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

(2009). Five-year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0022219408331037

36.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

37.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Kilpatrick

Swafford

Findell

(Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education Division of Behavioral, and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

38.

Nelson-Walker

N. J.

Fien

Kosty

D. B.

Smolkowski

Smith

J. L. M.

Baker

S. K.

(2013). Evaluating the effects of a systemic intervention on first-grade teachers’ explicit reading instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0731948712472186

39.

Pianta

R. C.

Hamre

B. K.

(2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.

40.

Rosenthal

Rosnow

R. L.

(2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

41.

Schmidt

Houang

Cogan

(2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26, 1–18.

42.

Smolkowski

Gunn

(2012). Reliability and validity of the classroom observations of student–teacher interactions (COSTI) for kindergarten reading instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 316–328. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.09.004

43.

Sutherland

K. S.

Wehby

J. H.

(2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121.

44.

Vaughn

Dammann

J. E.

(2001). Science and sanity in special education. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 21–29.

45.

Warren

S. F.

Fey

M. E.

Yoder

P. J.

(2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20139

46.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2013). What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.