Transcript PPT - SIGnetwork

Scientifically Based Math
Interventions
June 16, 2009
Alabama SPDG
Ms. Abbie Felder, Director
Curtis Gage, Education Specialist
Alabama Department of Education
Georgia SPDG
Dr. Julia Causey, Director
Georgia Department of
Education
Dr. Paul Riccomini
National Dropout Prevention
Center for Students with
Disabilities
Clemson University
Drs. Judy and Howard Schrag
Third Party Evaluators
Alabama and Georgia
• What does the research say?
• Overview - Alabama SBR Math
Interventions
• Evaluation of Alabama SBR Math
Interventions
• Overview – Georgia SBR Math
Interventions
• Evaluation of Georgia SBR Math
Interventions
• Summary
• Open Discussion
Let’s
examine the
evidence:
SBR Math Interventions
Foundations for Success
National Mathematics Advisory Panel
Final Report, March 2008
Presidential Executive Order
April 2006
• The Panel will advise the President
and the Secretary of Education on
the best use of scientifically based
research to advance the teaching
and learning of mathematics, with
a specific focus on preparation for
and success in algebra.
10
Basis of the Panel’s work
• Review of 16,000 research studies and
related documents.
• Public testimony gathered from 110
individuals.
• Review of written commentary from 160
organizations and individuals
• 12 public meetings held around the
country
• Analysis of survey results from 743
Algebra I teachers
11
Two Major Themes
• “First Things First”
- Positive results can be achieved in a reasonable time
at accessible cost by addressing clearly important
things now.
- A consistent, wise, community-wide effort will be
required.
“Learning as We Go Along”
- In some areas, adequate research does not exist.
- The community will learn more later on the
basis of carefully evaluated practice and research.
- We should follow a disciplined model of
continuous improvement.
12
Curricular Content
Streamline the Mathematics Curriculum in Grades
PreK-8:
• Follow a Coherent Progression, with
Emphasis on Mastery of Key Topics
• Focus on the Critical Foundations for
Algebra
- Proficiency with Whole Numbers
- Proficiency with Fractions
- Particular Aspects of Geometry and
Measurement
• Avoid Any Approach that Continually
Revisits Topics without Closure
13
Curricular Content
An Authentic Algebra Course
All school districts:
• Should ensure that all prepared students have
access to an authentic algebra course, and
• Should prepare more students than at present
to enroll in such a course by Grade 8.
14
Curricular Content
What Mathematics Do Teachers Need to Know?
• For early childhood teachers:
- Topics on whole numbers, fractions, and the
appropriate geometry and measurement
topics in the Critical Foundations of Algebra
• For elementary teachers:
- All topics in the Critical Foundations of
Algebra and those topics typically covered in
an introductory Algebra course
15
• For middle school teachers:
- The Critical Foundations of Algebra
- All of the Major Topics of School Algebra
Learning Processes
Scientific Knowledge on Learning and
Cognition Needs to be Applied to the
Classroom to Improve Student Achievement:
• Most children develop considerable knowledge of mathematics
before they begin kindergarten.
• Children from families with low incomes, low levels of parental
education, and single parents often have less mathematical
knowledge when they begin school than do children from more
advantaged backgrounds. This tends to hinder their learning
for years to come.
16
• There are promising interventions to improve the mathematical
knowledge of these young children before they enter
kindergarten.
Learning Processes
• To prepare students for Algebra, the curriculum
must simultaneously develop conceptual understanding,
computational fluency, factual knowledge and problem
solving skills.
• Limitations in the ability to keep many things in mind
(working-memory) can hinder mathematics performance.
- Practice can offset this through automatic recall, which
results in less information to keep in mind and frees
attention for new aspects of material at hand.
- Learning is most effective when practice is combined with
instruction on related concepts.
- Conceptual understanding promotes transfer of learning
to new problems and better long-term retention.
17
Learning Processes
Children’s goals and beliefs about learning are related
to their mathematics performance.
• Children’s beliefs about the relative importance of
effort and ability can be changed.
• Experiential studies have demonstrated that
changing children’s beliefs from a focus on ability
to a focus on effort increases their engagement in
mathematics learning, which in turn improves
mathematics outcomes.
18
Instructional Practices
Instructional practice should be informed by high
quality research, when available, and by the best
professional judgment and experience of
accomplished classroom teachers.
• All-encompassing recommendations that
instruction should be student-centered or
teacher-directed are not supported by
research.
19
Instructional Practices
Research on students who are low achievers,
have difficulties in mathematics, or have
learning disabilities related to mathematics
tells us that the effective practice includes:
• Explicit methods of instruction available on a
regular basis
• Clear problem solving models
• Carefully orchestrated examples/ sequences of
examples.
• Concrete objects to understand abstract
representations and notation.
20
• Participatory thinking aloud by students and
teachers.
For More Information
Please visit us online at:
http://www.ed.gov/MathPanel
21
Mathematical Proficiency Defined
National Research Council (2002)
defines proficiency as:
1. Understanding mathematics
2. Computing Fluently
3. Applying concepts to solve
problems
4. Reasoning logically
5. Engaging and communicating
with mathematics
Grous and Ceulla (2000) reported the following can
increase student learning and have a positive effect on student
achievement:
• Increasing the extent of the students’ opportunity to learn
(OTL) mathematics content.
• Focusing instruction on the meaningful development of
important mathematical ideas.
• Providing learning opportunities for both concepts and skills
by solving problems.
• Giving students both an opportunity to discover and invent
new knowledge and an opportunity to practice what they have
learned.
•Incorporating intuitive solution methods, especially when
combined with opportunities for student interaction and
discussion.
• Using small groups of students to work on activities, problems,
and assignments (e.g., small groups, Davidson, 1985; cooperative
learning, Slavin, 1990; peer assisted learning and tutoring, Baker,
et al., 2002).
• Whole-class discussion following individual and group work.
• Teaching math with a focus on number sense that encourages
students to become problem solvers in a wide variety of situations
and to view math as important for thinking.
• Use of concrete materials on a long-term basis to increase
achievement and improve attitudes toward math.
Alabama SBR Math SPDGSupported Activities
GOAL 1: Through the
implementation of SBR instructional
strategies within the framework,
there will be a 20 percent reduction
in the achievement gap between
students with and without
disabilities in the area of math and
age appropriate progress in preliteracy/reading and math.
Alabama State Department
MATH INITIATIVE
2008-2009
Overview
• 12 school districts participated in 2007-2008. An additional 4
school districts participated in 2008-2009 (16 total).
• 31 schools participated in 2007-08, and 42 schools
participated in 2008-2009—including 11 new schools.
• 170 teachers participated in 2007-08, and 281 participated
during 2008-2009—including 68 new teachers.
• Over 7700 students were entered into VPORT, with 4,659
students having two data points in at least one Vmath
assessment so far in the 2008-2009 school year.
• Of those with two data points, 838 were indicated as special
education students.
Voyager Expanded Learning Math Intervention
Program:
• A targeted, systematic program that provided
students more opportunity and support to learn
mathematics.
• Vmath is informed by Curriculum-Based
Measurement and provides daily, direct, systematic
instruction in essential skills needed to reduce
achievement gaps and accelerate struggling math
students to reach and maintain grade-level
performance.
• V-math is designed to complement all major math
programs by providing an additional 30-40 minutes of
daily, targeted concept, skill, and problem-solving
development.
• Each level of Vmath contains 10 individual modules
covering the basic strands of elementary mathematics.
• The content of these modules is aligned with grade-level
expectations for the NCTM Content Standards.
5 Keys to Successful VMath Implementation:
1. Amount of Instruction
•
5 days per week; 40 minutes per day
•
One lesson per day (some lessons will be l l/2 to 2 days, if
time is less than 40 minutes or students need extra time).
•
Start within 4 weeks of school start data.
2. Use of Assessments
•
Initial Assessment prior to instruction at the beginning of
the year
•
Computational Fluency Benchmark Assessments 3 times
per year.
•
Computational Fluency Progress Monitoring Assessments
mid-module.
•
Pre-Tests and Post Tests: Beginning and end of each
module.
•
Final Assessment after instruction at the end of the year.
3.
Quality of Instruction
•
3 hours of initial training on using scripted dialogue to
scaffold instruction implementing small-group instruction,
administering assessments, using VmathLive, and using
VPORT.
•
Principal/Coach reviews teacher instruction, teacher
completes self-analysis.
4. Differentiation
•
•
•
Small group instruction
Use Initial Assessments and PRE-Tests to identify
strengths and weaknesses in math content.
Differentiate instruction using VmathLive.
5. Classroom Management
•
Small group area identified; Vmath scheduled.
•
Overhead projector; Smartboard or teacher computer with
projector available to teach lessons.
•
Web-accessible computers for VmathLive designated.
Evaluation of VMath
I. Process Evaluation
1. Classroom visitations to gather on-going
implementation data during Year 2 of the SPDG.
• 88% of the Classrooms implemented VMath 5 days a
week (12% - Not Available)
• Number of minutes per day of VMath: 30 minutes:
59%; 37.5 – 4%; 45 minutes – 18%; less than 45 minutes
– 8% (11% - Not Available)
• Group size: 1-6 – 65%; 7-12 – 14%; 13 – 7% (Not
Available – 13%)
• Delivery Approach: 55% - In-class; 21% - Pull-Out;
Specialist pull/push – 13% (11% - Not Available).
2. Progress Monitoring
•
•
•
•
•
Initial Assessment prior to instruction at the beginning
of the year
Computational Fluency Benchmark Assessments 3
times per year.
Computational Fluency Progress Monitoring
Assessments mid-module.
Pre-Tests and Post Tests: Beginning and end of each
module.
Final Assessment after instruction at the end of the
year.
II. Outcome Evaluation
Student Math Achievement Scores on
State Testing – Statewide
Longitudinal Assessment of
Participating Students with Disabilities
Third Grade Computational
Fluency
60.0
51.7
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
18.9
10.0
• On average, Third Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 18.9 to 51.7.
0.0
B1
B2
3GR (490)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 92% to 44%.
Third Grade Modules
10.0
9.0
9.0
8.3
8.4
8.2
7.7
8.0
7.2
7.0
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.9
6.2
6.2
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.1
4.8
5.4
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers
M2 Adding Whole Numbers
M5
M6
N
425
396
M3 Subtracting Whole Numbers 369
M4 Multiplying Whole Numbers 362
M5 Dividing Whole Numbers
290
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M7
M8
Module Name
Decimals
Fractions
Data, Probability, &
Statistics
Geometry
Measurement
M9
N
131
175
1
61
7
M10
Third Grade Computational Fluency
Special Education Students
40.0
37.7
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.7
15.0
10.0
• On average, Third Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 15.7 to 37.7.
5.0
0.0
B1
B2
3GR (74)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 96% to 72%.
Third Grade Modules
Special Education Students
9.0
7.9
7.8
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.0
6.0
5.8
6.0
5.0
6.8
6.4
4.7
4.3
5.9
5.8
5.8
4.4
3.9
4.0
3.3
2.9
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers
M2 Adding Whole Numbers
M5
M6
N
425
396
M3 Subtracting Whole Numbers 369
M4 Multiplying Whole Numbers 362
M5 Dividing Whole Numbers
290
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M7
M8
Module Name
Decimals
Fractions
Data, Probability, &
Statistics
Geometry
Measurement
M9
N
131
175
1
61
7
M10
Fourth Grade Computational
Fluency
60.0
56.4
50.0
40.0
37.5
30.0
20.0
• On average, Fourth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 37.5 to 56.4.
10.0
0.0
B1
B2
4GR (552)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 35% to 19%.
Fourth Grade Modules
10.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
7.5
6.9
7.0
6.0
7.4
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.3
4.8
4.6
5.0
6.0
5.8
5.4
4.2
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.1
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers
N
440
M6
M2 Adding Whole Numbers
Multiplying Whole
M3 Numbers
M4 Dividing Whole Numbers
M5 Decimals
411
M7
419
314
76
M7
M8
M9
Module Name
Number Theory
N
170
Fractions and Percent
Data, Probability, &
M8 Statistics
M9 Geometry
M10 Measurement
97
44
1
1
M10
Fourth Grade Computational Fluency
Special Education Students
45.0
40.2
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.6
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
• On average, Fourth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 25.6 to 40.2.
5.0
0.0
B1
B2
4GR (111)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 62% to 51%.
Fourth Grade Modules
Special Education Students
8.0
7.3
7.0
7.0
6.3
6.0
5.0
5.8
5.7
4.0
4.8
4.7
4.4
3.6
3.5
4.1
4.3
M6
M7
3.3
2.8
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
Module Name
M5
N
M9
Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers
111
M6
M2 Adding Whole Numbers
Multiplying Whole
M3 Numbers
M4 Dividing Whole Numbers
M5 Decimals
94
M7
104
80
26
M8
N
Number Theory
21
Fractions and Percent
Data, Probability, &
M8 Statistics
M9 Geometry
M10 Measurement
4
M10
Fifth Grade Computational
Fluency
60.0
50.0
37.9
40.0
31.9
30.0
20.0
10.0
• On average, Fifth Grade students have
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 31.9 to 37.9.
0.0
B1
B2
5GR (438)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency increased from 3% to 6%.
Fifth Grade Modules
9.0
7.7
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.0
6.4
5.8
8.1
7.9
6.3
6.4
6.2
5.8
8.0
7.7
5.3
4.6
5.0
4.1
4.0
4.8
4.4
3.6
3.4
2.8
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers
Adding and Subtracting
M2 Decimals
Multiplying and Dividing
M3 Decimals
M4 Number Theory
Adding and Subtracting
M5 Fractions
M5
M6
N
M7
M8
M9
Module Name
N
312
M6 Multiplying Fractions
42
289
30
235
128
M7 Percent
Data, Probability, &
M8 Statistics
M9 Geometry
100
M10 Measurement
8
27
69
M10
Fifth Grade Computational Fluency
Special Education Students
40.0
35.6
35.0
30.0
29.5
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
• On average, Fifth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 29.5 to 35.6.
5.0
0.0
B1
B2
5GR (110)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency increased from 5% to 12%.
Fifth Grade Modules
Special Education Students
9.0
8.0
7.3
7.1
7.6
7.3
7.0
7.0
5.7
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.1
5.1
4.7
5.0
4.1
4.0
3.3
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.0
M6
M7
3.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Module Name
M1 Whole Numbers
Adding and Subtracting
M2 Decimals
Multiplying and Dividing
M3 Decimals
M4 Number Theory
Adding and Subtracting
M5 Fractions
M8
M9
Module Name
92
M6 Multiplying Fractions
13
70
1
57
30
M7 Percent
Data, Probability, &
M8 Statistics
M9 Geometry
32
M10 Measurement
3
16
M10
Sixth Grade Computational
Fluency
60.0
51.5
50.0
41.5
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
• On average, Sixth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 41.5 to 51.5.
0.0
B1
B2
6GR (472)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 23% to 16%.
Sixth Grade Modules
9.0
8.0
8.0
6.8
7.0
6.3
5.9
5.8
6.0
6.6
6.3
5.9
6.0
6.0
5.2
5.0
4.0
4.3
3.6
3.4
2.9
3.0
3.8
3.7
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
Module Name
M5
M6
N
M7
M8
M9
Module Name
N
M1 Decimals
325
M6
Geometry
32
M2 Number Theory
Adding and Subtracting
M3 Fractions
Multiplying & Dividing
M4 Fractions
Ratio, Proportion, and
M5 Percent
287
M7
10
277
M8
Measurement
Data, Probability, &
Statistics
220
M9
Per-Algebra
2
117
M10 Integers
10
5
M10
Sixth Grade Computational Fluency
Special Education Students
45.0
40.0
42.6
39.2
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
• On average, Sixth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 39.2 to 42.6.
5.0
0.0
B1
B2
6GR (97)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency increased from 31% to 34%.
Sixth Grade Modules
Special Education Students
7.0
6.0
5.9
5.7
6.0
5.4
5.4
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.0
3.3
3.3
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
Module Name
M7
M8
M9
Module Name
M1 Decimals
54
M6
Geometry
10
M2 Number Theory
Adding and Subtracting
M3 Fractions
Multiplying & Dividing
M4 Fractions
Ratio, Proportion, and
M5 Percent
61
M7
1
52
M8
Measurement
Data, Probability, &
Statistics
53
M9
Per-Algebra
29
M10 Integers
8
M10
Seventh Grade Computational
Fluency
50.0
47.0
40.0
33.3
30.0
20.0
10.0
• On average, Seventh Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 33.3 to 47.
0.0
B1
B2
7GR (473)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 65% to 47%.
Seventh Grade Modules
9.0
8.2
8.0
7.4
7.0
6.6
6.7
6.4
6.0
6.0
5.6
6.0
5.2
5.6
5.1
4.6
5.0
4.5
3.7
4.0
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Module Name
M6
N
M7
M8
M9
Module Name
N
M1 Decimals
343
M6 Per-Algebra
0
M2 Number Theory
287
M7 Geometry
10
M3 Integers
Adding and Subtracting
M4 Fractions
Multiplying and Dividing
M5 Fractions
268
M8 Measurement
Ratio, Proportion, and
M9 Percent
Data, Probability, &
M10 Statistics
0
187
96
11
2
M10
Seventh Grade Computational Fluency
Special Education Students
50.0
46.8
45.0
40.0
35.0
34.1
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
• On average, Seventh Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 34.1 to 46.8.
5.0
0.0
B1
B2
7GR (101)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 57% to 48%.
Seventh Grade Modules
Special Education Students
8.0
7.1
7.0
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.4
4.0
4.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
Module Name
M1 Decimals
51
Module Name
M6 Per-Algebra
M2 Number Theory
41
M7 Geometry
M3 Integers
Adding and Subtracting
M4 Fractions
Multiplying and Dividing
M5 Fractions
36
M8 Measurement
Ratio, Proportion, and
M9 Percent
Data, Probability, &
M10 Statistics
20
9
M9
M10
Eighth Grade Computational
Fluency
40.0
35.4
30.0
28.8
20.0
10.0
• On average, Eighth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 28.8 to 35.4.
0.0
B1
B2
8GR (475)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 11% to 7%.
Eighth Grade Modules
8.0
7.3
6.0
6.8
6.7
7.0
6.4
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.1
5.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.5
3.4
M6
M7
3.1
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M8
Module Name
M1 Integers
N
217
M6
M2 Rational Numbers
Exponents and Square
M3 Roots
Ratio, Proportion, and
M4 Percent
M5 Expressions and Equations
235
M7
176
M8
146
93
M9 Coordinate Geometry
M10 Inequalities
M9
Module Name
Geometry
N
57
Measurement
Data, Probability, &
Statistics
18
M10
Eighth Grade Computational Fluency
Special Education Students
40.0
35.4
35.0
30.0
28.8
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
• On average, Eighth Grade students
increased their Computational Fluency
scores from 28.8 to 35.4.
5.0
0.0
B1
B2
8GR (91)
• The percent of students needing
intensive focus on computational
fluency decreased from 20% to 14%.
Eighth Grade Modules
Special Education Students
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.8
6.5
6.3
5.9
5.4
5.1
5.0
4.4
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M1
M2
M3
M4
Module Name
M1 Integers
M2 Rational Numbers
Exponents and Square
M3 Roots
Ratio, Proportion, and
M4 Percent
M5 Expressions and Equations
M5
M6
M7
M8
Module Name
Geometry
55
M6
44
M7
39
M8
28
22
M9 Coordinate Geometry
M10 Inequalities
Measurement
Data, Probability, &
Statistics
M9
17
9
M10
Transitional Math
Four school improvement schools were selected during
Year 2 for implementation of Transitional Math:
One high school in Butler County - Greenville
One high school in Elmore County - Stanhope
Two high schools in Montgomery County – Jefferson
Davis and Robert E. Lee
The four participating schools received eight days of
technical assistance a month from two consultants from
SOPRIS West.
Transitional Mathematics is designed to help
students understand operations on whole
numbers conceptually and addresses the needs
of struggling students who have scored at or
below the 40th percentile on national math tests.
Transitional Mathematics is based on three broad
design principals;
1. Ensuring that students have relevant
background knowledge.
2. Using a balanced approach in computational
practice.
3. Addressing the need for careful time
management.
I. Process Evaluation
The Transitional Math program uses
curriculum based student progress
monitoring, which services as a
fidelity tool. In August 2009, the
TransMath Online Assessment
System will be launched as:
1. Individualized student placement
based on student’s mastery of
foundational math skills.
2. Ongoing assessment to inform
instruction and measure student
progress
de
de
nt
l
St nt 2
ud
e
St nt 3
ud
e
St nt 4
ud
e
St nt 5
ud
e
St nt 6
ud
e
St nt 7
ud
e
St nt 8
ud
St ent
ud
9
e
St nt 1
ud
0
en
t
St
ud 11
e
St nt 1
ud
2
en
t
St
ud 13
e
St nt 1
ud
4
e
St nt 1
ud
5
en
t
St
ud 16
e
St nt 1
ud
7
e
St nt 1
ud
8
en
t
St
ud 19
en
t
St
ud 20
e
St nt 2
ud
1
en
t
St
ud 22
en
t
St
ud 23
e
St nt 2
ud
4
e
St nt 2
ud
5
en
t2
Av 6
er
ag
e
St
u
St
u
Stanhope Elmore High School
Comparison (Dec/May)
120
100
80
60
Series1
Series2
40
20
0
Average
Student 33
Student 32
Student 31
Student 30
Student 29
Student 28
Student 27
Student 26
Student 25
Student 24
Student 23
Student 22
Student 21
Student 20
Student 19
Student 18
Studemt 17
Student 16
Student 15
Student 14
Student 13
Student 12
Student 11
Student 10
Student 9
Student 8
Student 7
Student 6
Student 5
Student 4
Student 3
Student 2
Student l
Jefferson Davis High School Comparison
Comparison (Dec/May)
100
90
80
70
60
50
Series
Series
40
30
20
10
0
Student 27
Student 25
Student 23
Student 21
Student 19
Student 17
Student 15
Student 13
Student 11
Student 9
Student 7
Student 5
Student 3
Student 1
Greenville High School
Comparison Comparison
(Dec/May)
70
60
50
40
Pre-test
30
Post test
20
10
0
Students Assessed
Student 14
Student 13
Student 12
Student 11
Student 10
Student 9
Student 8
Student 7
Student 6
Student 5
Student 4
Student 3
Student 2
Student 1
Percentile Rank
Robert E. Lee High School
Comparison Comparison (Dec/May)
80
70
60
50
40
Pre-Test
Post Test
30
20
10
0
II. Outcome Evaluation
Student Math Achievement Scores on
State Testing – Statewide
Longitudinal Assessment of
Participating Students
Lessons Learned/Next Steps
• The value of teacher coaching/support to
ensure fidelity of instruction and data
gathering.
• The importance of providing data driven
instruction based on individual student
needs.
Georgia SBI Math SPDGSupported Activities
Math in Georgia
• SPDG Context
–Georgia Performance
Standards rollout
–Dropout
Prevention/Graduation Project
Georgia Performance
Standards: Math
• Georgia Performance Standards
– Integrated math curriculum: algebra, geometry, statistics
– Aligns with recommendations from the National Math
Panel
– New Math Standards
• Phase-in statewide: 2005-2011
– Grade 6 in 2005
--K-2 and 7 in 2006;
– Grades 3-5 and 8 in 2007 --Grade 9 began last year
– Full implementation: 2011
• Intensive statewide training for all math teachers
– standards-based math instruction
– Implementation of the Student Achievement Pyramid of
Interventions (RTI)
Georgia SPDG Goals
• Improve reading and math achievement
• Increase the number of students with disabilities who
graduate with a general education diploma
• Decrease the number of students with disabilities ho
dropout
• Improve Postsecondary outcomes
• Increase recruitment of fully certified special education
teachers
• Increase parent support of pre-literacy, math, and social
skills development for young children with disabilities
• Embed parent engagement within each goal
Georgia’s SPDG
• Focus is dropout prevention and increasing
the graduation rate for students with
disabilities
• Partnering with the National Dropout
Prevention Center for Students with
Disabilities
– Year 1: Data Analysis and Individualized Plans
– Year 2: Training and Implementation
Georgia SPDG
– Cohort 1 (2007-2009)
• 34 schools (15 HS, 18 MS)
– High School with one or two feeder middle
schools
– Geographically distributed throughout the
state
– Content
• Research-based dropout prevention
strategies
• Partnership with the National Dropout
Prevention Center for Students with
Disabilities
NDPC-SD Dropout Prevention
Intervention Framework
Project Strands
Action Plan
Development
“Best Fit”
Strategies
Data
Utilization
Guided by
NDPCSWD
79
Project Strands
Academic
Achievement
Behavior
Parent/Family
Engagement
Reading and
Mathematics
Mentoring
Family
Engagement
Strategies
Content
Enhancement
Strategies
Positive
Behavior
Supports
Transition
Planning and
Vocational
Assessment
80
Collaboration Coaches’ Duties
Attend to Essential Implementation Tasks
81
Essential Tasks to Facilitate In-school
Implementation
•
•
•
•
Identify team members for the school
Participate in overview training
Participate in data training
Collect and analyze data
Essential Tasks to Facilitate In-school
Implementation
• Examine causes and prioritize needs based on
school and system data
• Participate in overview of effective practices that
increase student engagement and school
completion
• Select intervention framework that best matches
prioritized need
• Develop a reasonable action plan
Essential Tasks to Facilitate In-school
Implementation
• Provide training for appropriate school staff on the
selected intervention
• Develop a timetable for coaching and feedback to
ensure fidelity of implementation
• Establish checkpoints to evaluate implementation
of intervention
• Communicate results of implementation
Schools Implementing SRB Math
•
Improving math achievement priority = 10
schools
•
Lewis Frazier Middle School
•
Midway Middle School
•
Henry High School
•
Henry Middle School
•
Rutland Middle School
•
Coffee High School
•
Coffee Middle School
•
Cook Middle School
•
Manchester Middle School
Cohort 1 Baseline Data
• Georgia High School Graduation Test
– Percent Passing Math
• 5-20 %
=
6 High Schools
• 25-40%
=
5 High Schools
• > 40 %
=
2 High Schools
• Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test
– Percent Passing Math
• < 20%
=
1 Middle School
• 25-40%
=
10 Middle Schools
• > 40%
=
7 Middle Schools
Expanding the Training
• Ten targeted schools: math teachers and
collaboration coaches trained
• Demand spread beyond SPDG schools
• Expanded training beyond SPDG schools
– Open to any school stateside
– Trained several hundred math teachers on
strategies for teaching students struggling in math
– Follow-up webinars for interested participants
– 2010-2011 school year: Follow-training will be
offered to participants from last school year
Components of Effective
Mathematics Programs
Mathematics
Curriculum &
Interventions
Assessment &
Data-Based
Decisions
100% Math
Proficiency
Teacher Content
& Instructional
Knowledge
Teachers and Teacher Education
Mathematically Knowledgeable Classroom
Teachers Have a Central Role in Mathematics
Education.
• Evidence shows that a substantial part of
the variability in student achievement gains
is due to the teacher.
• Less clear from the evidence is exactly what it
is about particular teachers—what they know
and do –that makes them more effective.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008)
89
Basis for Math Instruction
1. Engaged Time**
2. Student Success Rate
3. Content Coverage & Opportunity to Learn
4. Grouping for Instruction**
5. Scaffolded Instruction**
6. Addressing Forms of Knowledge
7. Activating & Organizing Knowledge**
8. Teaching Strategically**
9. Making Instruction Explicit**
10.Making Connections
Specific Instructional
Strategies
1. Space learning over time
2. Interleave worked example solutions and
problem-solving exercises
3. Connect and integrate abstract and
concrete representations of concepts
4. Use quizzes to re-expose students to
information
IES Practice Guide (2007). Organizing Instructional and Study to Improve Student Learning
Specific Areas Targeted
1.
2.
3.
4.
Computational Fluency
Conceptual Development
Basic Fact Automaticity
Problem Solving &
Application
5. Essential Vocabulary
6. Student Success
Instructional Practices
Research on students who are low
achievers, have difficulties in mathematics,
or have learning disabilities related to
mathematics tells us that the effective
practice includes:
• Explicit methods of instruction available on a
regular basis
• Clear problem solving models
• Carefully orchestrated examples/ sequences of
examples.
• Concrete objects to understand abstract
representations and notation.
• Participatory thinking aloud by students and
teachers.
93
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008)
Evaluation of SBR Initiatives
Formative Data
• Formative Data
– Individualized based on each school’s focus priority
– Used to guide implementation of the action plan
– Collected for targeted at-risk student group
• Discipline Referrals
• Reading Achievement
• Math Achievement
• Social Studies Achievement
• Science Achievement
• Attendance
• English/Language Arts
• Discipline Referrals
Summative Data
• All Cohort 1 Schools
• Graduation Rate for Students with
Disabilities and All Students
(Collected Oct. 09)
• Dropout Rates for Students with
Disabilities and All Students
(Collected Oct. 09)
Summative Math Data
For the 10 project schools with a
math focus
CRCT Math Scores for Middle
Schools
GHSGT Math Scores for High
Schools
Scores will be available late
summer
Formative Data
• Specific to each school’s plan and
interventions
• Examples:
– Lewis Frazier Middle School: Transmath
• 18 % of targeted students passed CRCT Math 2008
• 44% of the same targeted students passed CRCT
Math 2009
– Liberty County High School: Transmath
• All targeted students with pre/post test data
improved
Formative Data Examples
• Midway Middle School:
– 59 % of students with both pre/post test scores
improved.
• Rutland Middle School: SuccessMaker Math
Labs
– 59% of targeted students improved math grade level
scores, ranging from .54 to 3.07
Formative Results Examples
• Cook County Middle School: ASCEND Math Lab
COMPUTATION
Of the targeted group of students:
• 57% were SWD
• 71% of all students
progressed from the
Frustration to Instructional or
Mastery Level
• 66% of SWD progressed
from the Frustration to
Instructional or Mastery
Level
CONCEPTS/ESTIMATI
ON
Of the targeted group of students:
• 28% were SWD
• 56% of all students
progressed from the
Frustration to Instructional or
Mastery Level
• 45% of SWD progressed
from the Frustration to
Instructional or Mastery
Level
Formative Data Examples
• Coffee County Middle School:
– Saturday school with math focus
• Math vocabulary and fluency
– AIMSWeb for progress monitoring 6th and 8th
gr.
– Numeracy coaches
– Strategies from SPDG training
– Results for 24 sections of 6th grade math
• 79% of the sections had >50% of students with
matched scores from January to March improved
Coffee County: Examining
Teacher Practices
• Pilot Survey of 6th Grade Teachers
– Use of 12 targeted strategies from Riccomini’s
training on differentiating in math
– Six teachers participated in the survey
– Twelve strategies/methods from the training
were identified on the survey
Instruction Methods/Strategies on
Survey
• Grouping
• Scaffolded Instruction
• General Learning
Strategies (Ex. RIDE)
• Math Vocabulary
• Spaced Instructional
Review (SIR)
• Interleave Worked
Example
• Writing about Math
• Graphic Organizers for
Math
• Mnemonic Strategy
• Fluency
• Explicit Methods of
Instruction
• Memory Strategies
– Chunking & Keyword
Survey Results
Teacher
Number Used In Last
Unit
Number will Use Next
Year
1
6
4
2
12
11
3
12
12
4
12
12
5
12
3
6
9
3
Average
10.5
7.5
2009 Statewide CRCT Results
• 6th Grade All Students
–
–
–
–
75 % met/exceeded the standard
6 percentage point increase from 2008
15 percentage point increase since 2006
Exceeded state target
–
–
–
–
84 % met/exceeded the standard
4 percentage point increase from 2008
14 percentage point increase since 2006
Exceeded state target
• 7th Grade All Students
• 8th Grade All Students
– 70 % met/exceeded the standard
– 8 percentage point increase from 2009
– Exceeded target
Students with Disabilities
• CRCT Math Scores ‘08 to
‘09
–More than a five percentage
point increase in math scores
for grades 6, 7, and 8 for
SWD
Students with Disabilities
• Georgia High School
Graduation Test
–Grade 11, first-time test takers
–‘08 to ‘09 for SWD
• 63 % met/exceeded standards
• 4 percentage point increase from
2008
Lessons Learned/Next Steps
• Review of requirements for data collection
to better ensure uniformity
• Importance of continuing connection with
general education statewide math initiatives
• Selection of new cohort of schools for Year
3
• Continued follow-up for cohort 1
• other
Open Discussion