Search

This implementation project focused on supporting teachers who provide mathematics instruction and/or intervention to students with mathematics learning disabilities (MLD) and mathematics difficulties (MD). The research team worked with three schools, over three years. Instructional delivery differed across schools, primarily in setting and amount of time students received mathematics instruction. Given these various contexts, the project provided job-embedded professional development to support each school's implementation of the three key features of the project: using evidence-based curricula, using evidence-based practices, and responsive coaching. By focusing middle school intervention on algebraic reasoning--which requires a strong understanding of rational numbers, variables, and equivalence--students with MLD and MD made gains across the school year that were comparable to their peers. However, the gains were not enough to close the achievement gap between students with MLD and MD and students who are on grade-level. Given the three-year implementation of this project included two years of altered instruction due to COVID-19 restrictions, it is encouraging that students with MLD and MD made gains that were comparable to their peers. The project worked with eight teachers across the three schools and found variability among their implementation and how they preferred to work with the research team. From an implementation science perspective, one year of implementing a new innovation is likely insufficient to fully build capacity in teachers to sustain the practices learned from the JEPD. However, teachers indicated that they learned many new things related to teaching students with MLD and MD through the JEPD, which is encouraging.

A solid foundation in fractions is a key predictor of success in algebra and more advanced mathematics, which in turn is predictive of entry into higher education and many high-paying vocations. Yet, when fractions are introduced into the mathematics curriculum in upper elementary grades (grades 4 and 5), many students demonstrate minimal growth in fractions knowledge and some students find themselves three grade levels or more behind their peers at the start of seventh grade. Identifying the best way to meet the needs of students who struggle with fractions, coupled with validating instructional approaches that address this need, is critical. This brief paper presents research findings from an experimental study utilizing a "preventative" approach to fraction intervention for fifth-grade students that emphasizes "proactively" teaching grade-level standards in conjunction with key foundations for understanding fractions concepts and procedures. Then, six recommendations for practice and policy are presented based on findings from the research study.

The goal of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of a small-group intervention in fractions for fifth-graders who are performing below grade level in mathematics. The impact of the fractions intervention was assessed on fifth-grade at-risk students' understanding of foundational fractions concepts and procedural competence with fractions. For the fractions intervention, lessons from the "TransMath"® curriculum (Level 2; Woodward & Stroh, 2015) were modified to create 52 thirty-five-minute lessons focused only on fourth- and fifth-grade level fractions content that could be used in a small-group setting. In this rigorous large-scale RCT, a sample of 1,123 students from three school districts across two U.S. states were screened at the beginning of the school year using a fractions measure developed by the research team. Two hundred and five students who scored between the 15th and the 37th percentile on the screening measure and received parental consent to participate were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 102) and comparison (n = 103) conditions. Students in the fractions intervention condition received 35-minute tutoring sessions 3-4 times a week. Fraction instruction using the 52 "TransMath" lessons was provided by trained tutors. The comparison condition (n = 103) was business as usual instruction (i.e., core classroom fractions instruction, including intervention or support traditionally provided by the school). Results from the final analytic sample of 186 students (87 in intervention, 99 in comparison) showed that the intervention group significantly outperformed the comparison group on all outcome measures, which included an array of assessments used to measure both student understanding of foundational fractions concepts as well as procedural competence with grade-level fraction material (Hedges' g = 0.66 to 1.08; p < 0.0001).

Response to intervention (RTI) is a comprehensive early detection and prevention strategy used to identify and support struggling students before they fall behind. An RTI model usually has three tiers or levels of support. Tier 1 is generally defined as classroom instruction provided to all students, tier 2 is typically a preventive intervention offered to students who fall behind when given only classroom instruction, and tier 3 is more intensive intervention offered to students who failed to respond to the supports in tiers 1 and 2. This review provides updated information on the evidence supporting the use of reading interventions for students who are at risk of reading difficulty in grades 1-3. The review was conducted by Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast in response to discussions with members of its Improving Literacy Research Alliance. Alliance members became even more interested in the topic after a recently completed national evaluation using intensive reading interventions in an RTI model failed to show positive impacts for students who scored at or slightly below the score that would make them eligible for RTI services in their school (Balu et al., 2015). The review team conducted a comprehensive review of the research literature from 2002 (the year that the No Child Left Behind Act went into effect and triggered large-scale national implementation of reading interventions) to June 2014, when this study started. The purpose of the review was to assess the current evidence base on the use of reading interventions for improving student outcomes in grades 1-3. The review was limited to studies of tier 2 interventions, those designed to provide preventive services to students at risk of struggling with typical classroom reading instruction. It did not include studies whose subject was intensive (tier 3) intervention--that is, studies geared to students who require more than tier 2 support. The literature search and review identified 27 efficacy studies that the review team determined met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards either with or without reservations (What Works Clearinghouse, 2014a). Of the 27 studies, 23 compared the performance of students who received the intervention with the performance of students who did not. (Some interventions were examined in more than one study, and some studies examined more than one intervention.) The remaining four studies either explored variations in components of one specific intervention or contrasted two interventions, without a control condition. Of the 23 studies that compared students who did and those who did not receive the intervention, 15 studies examined 13 interventions in grade 1, and 8 studies examined 7 interventions in grades 2 and 3. Although this report relies heavily on WWC protocols, procedures, and standards, and WWC-certified reviewers conducted the reviews, this report is not a WWC product. Key findings from the 23 efficacy studies of the 20 interventions include: (1) All but 1 of the 20 interventions demonstrated positive or potentially positive effects in at least one of the four areas of reading performance: word and pseudoword reading, passage reading fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. Effects were strongest and most consistent in word and pseudoword reading, though some interventions also had effects in reading comprehension and passage reading fluency. No effects were found in vocabulary; (2) All 11 of the individually administered interventions and 8 of 9 of the small-group interventions resulted in positive or potentially positive effects; and (3) All 20 interventions included high levels of ongoing support for the teachers, paraeducators, volunteers, and other adults who worked with students. Though the reviewed studies showed that 19 of the 20 reading interventions were effective, most of the interventions included a component that is atypical of current school practice: ongoing support for the interventionist (the teacher, paraeducator, or member of the research staff responsible for delivering the intervention). In addition, the majority of interventions involved individual (one-on-one) interventions, as opposed to typical school implementations, which involve small groups of three to five students. When considering how to use these findings, it is important to consider that these studies do not reflect typical school practice, where weekly or biweekly monitoring of fidelity of implementation and onsite coaching are rarely available. The following are appended: (1) The search, screening, and review process; (2) Forty-three studies reviewed using What Works Clearinghouse standards; (3) Research basis for the studies that the review team determined met What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards; and (4) Summary of the weighted mean effect sizes by area of reading for grade 1 and grade 2 and 3 interventions.

Large scale longitudinal research (Morgan, Farkas, & Wu, 2009) and a meta-analysis (Duncan et al., 2007) have found that early mathematics achievement is a strong predictor of later mathematics achievement. In fact, end of Kindergarten and end of grade 1 mathematics achievement on ECLS-K and similar mathematics proficiency measures tends to be a stronger predictor than early measures of reading or reading-related skills such as phonemic awareness. Yet, despite increasing interest, there is little research on the effectiveness of recommended best practices in Response to Intervention Models (RtI) in mathematics (Gersten et al. 2009). This study (Rolfhus, et al. 2012) replicates the Fuchs et al. (2005) study as the first large-scale effectiveness trial (one intended to approximate real-world implementation) of "Number Rockets". While the Fuchs et al. study used interventionists experienced with at-risk students, the current study employed interventionists with a range of experience who were selected from the local community. While the Fuchs et al. study provided interventionists with substantial monitoring and support, the current study provided professional development and a support program similar to those provided by publishers of curriculum products (Agodini et al. 2009). Different measures were used to identify at-risk students, and measure outcomes. Finally, the district in the Fuchs et al. study used just one curriculum; each of the four urban districts in the current study used a different one, which may have provided a more heterogeneous instructional context. This study is the first effectiveness evaluation (and first replication) of "Number Rockets" and builds on the positive findings of the Fuchs et al. (2005) efficacy study. Tables are appended.

The ESEA Blueprint for Reform states that teachers need "effective, ongoing, job-embedded, professional development that is targeted to student and school needs… [and] aligned with evidence of improvements in student learning." Unfortunately, the professional development approaches advocated, though sensible and compelling in theory, have rarely been widely field-tested and evaluated using rigorous research techniques. The situation is slowly changing, but often the results have been mixed. One promising professional development effort in recent years has been the Teacher Study Group (TSG). This approach to professional development is an attempt to orchestrate several of the "best practices" in professional development--linkage to core curriculum, concreteness, establishment of collegial networks, and ongoing related activities--into a feasible model for use in elementary schools. The goal of the TSG professional development program is to enhance instruction by helping teachers integrate research-based instructional strategies into their existing curriculum. The purpose of the study is to examine the impact of the Teacher Study Group, focused on effective vocabulary instruction, on teacher knowledge, observed teaching practice, and student vocabulary achievement when implemented with first grade teachers in Title I schools. The major research questions were: (1) What is the impact of the TSG on teacher knowledge and teaching practice when compared to the professional development efforts being provided by the states and districts?; (2) What is the impact of the TSG on students' vocabulary knowledge when compared with students in classes receiving existing professional development efforts?; (3) What role does fidelity of implementation of the TSG protocols by the facilitators play in moderating the impacts of TSG on teacher and student outcomes?; and (4) What contextual factors facilitate or hinder effective implementation of the TSG? the randomized controlled study was conducted in 61 Title 1 schools (31 treatment and 30 control) from 16 school districts in four states: California, Ohio, Illinois, and Texas. The sample consisted of 182 first grade teachers (94 treatment and 88 control) and a randomly selected sample of 1811 students (940 in treatment and 871 in control). In each district, data were collected from both the TSG and control schools at the same time, by observers and testers blind to condition, to guard against bias entering the data collection process. Preliminary findings demonstrate the potential of the TSG intervention to bring about significant positive impacts at the teacher level (a proximal outcome for a professional development intervention). Tables are appended.

Results after two years of using three reading comprehension curricula show gains from one program and no effects for the other two on reading comprehension for fifth-graders, according to a study released by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance in the Institute of Education Sciences. The study focused on whether 5th grade students in disadvantaged schools could be helped in making the transition from "learning to read" to "reading to learn" by bolstering the vocabulary and comprehension skills that allow them to organize and acquire knowledge from text. Three commercially available supplemental reading comprehension curricula were used for a second year by school and teachers to teach explicit reading comprehension strategies--ReadAbout, Read for Real, and Project CRISS. The study included 182 teachers and 61 schools in 10 districts, with study schools within each district assigned by lottery to use one of the curricula or serve as a control group. No positive impacts of the curricula on student reading comprehension were found in the study's first year. Key findings after two years of using the curricula include: (1) here was a positive, statistically significant impact of ReadAbout on social studies reading comprehension when teachers used it for a second year. The effect size was 0.22, which amounts to moving from the 50th percentile to the 59th percentile. This reading program teaches students comprehension skills--such as author's purpose, main idea, cause and effect, compare and contrast, summarizing and inferences--using a computer program that adapts to each student's reading level. The program also allowed for easier integration of small-group instruction and provided immediate feedback to students; (2) The impacts on fifth-grade reading comprehension were not statistically significantly different from zero for the other two other curricula, Read for Real and Project CRISS, when used by schools for a second year. (A fourth curriculum, Reading for Knowledge, was studied in the first year but was not included in the second cohort); and (3) Two of three teacher practices--classroom management and explicit reading strategy guidance--were positively correlated with improvements in student reading comprehension. The explicit guidance had teachers explaining text structure and modeling comprehension strategies as students practiced those strategies.

This document reports on the impacts on student achievement for four supplemental reading curricula that use similar overlapping instructional strategies designed to improve reading comprehension in social studies and science text. Fifth-grade reading comprehension for each of three commercially-available curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real) was not significantly different from the control group. The fourth curriculum, Reading for Knowledge, was adapted from Success for All for this study, and had a statistically-significant negative impact on fifth-grade reading comprehension. The study is based on a rigorous experimental design and a large sample that includes 10 districts, 89 schools, 268 teachers, and 6,350 students. During the first year of the study, it was found that over 90 percent (91 to 100 percent) of treatment teachers were trained to use the assigned curriculum, and more than half (56 to 80 percent) reported that they were very well prepared by the training to implement it. Over 80 percent (81 to 91 percent) of teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. Classroom observation data showed that teachers implemented 55 to 78 percent of the behaviors deemed important by the developers for implementing each curriculum. Scores on the three reading comprehension assessments were not statistically significantly higher in schools using the selected reading comprehension curricula. Impacts were correlated with some subgroups defined by student, teacher, and school characteristics. Appendixes include: (1) Random Assignment; (2) Flow of Schools and Students through the Study; (3) Obtaining Parent Consent; (4) Implementation Timeline; (5) Sample Sizes and Response Rates; (6) Creation and Reliability of Classroom Observation and Teacher Survey Measures; (7) Estimating Impacts; (8) Assessing Robustness of the Impacts; (9) Key Descriptive Statistics for Classroom Observation and Fidelity Data; (10) Study Instruments; and (11) Unadjusted Means. (Contains 91 tables, 8 figures, and 78 footnotes.)