improving instructional systems and supports to accelerate learning ...
IMPROVING INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS TO ACCELERATE LEARNING AND CLOSE THE ARITHMETIC TO ALGEBRA GAP FOR SECONDARY STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: MAXIMIZING TIER 1 & TIER 2 UTAH CEC CONFERENCE Dr. Paul J. Riccomini [email protected] @pjr146
Topics for Today • Designing instruction to help students of all skill levels achieve success in mathematics. • Components of Effective Math Instruction – Tier 1 and Tier 2
• Structural Features of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Instruction and Intervention Supports © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Evidence‐Based Practices Within a Tiered Framework • Multitiered Systems of Supports – High‐quality core instruction with evidence‐based instructional practices and research‐based intervention at varying levels of intensity
• Essential components of Multitiered Systems of Supports – – – –
Screening Progress monitoring Multilevel prevention system Data‐based decision making
Evidence‐Based Practices Within a Tiered Framework Primary (Tier 1)
Secondary (Tier 2)
Intensive (Tier 3)
Instruction/ Intervention Approach
Comprehensive research‐based curriculum
Standardized, targeted small‐group instruction
Individualized, based on student data
Group Size
Classwide (with some small‐group instruction)
Three to seven students
No more than three students
Monitor Progress
Once per term
At least once per month
Weekly
Population Served
All students
At‐risk students
Significant and persistent learning needs
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions 100% Math Proficiency
Teacher Content & Instructional Knowledge © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions 100% Math Proficiency
Teacher Content & Instructional Knowledge
Instruction Matters © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
High Quality Instruction
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
Evidence‐Based Instruction
High Quality Instruction
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
Evidence‐Based Instruction INSTRUCTIONAL Strategies High Quality Instruction
Strategies © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
Evidence‐Based Instruction INSTRUCTIONAL Strategies High Quality Instruction Grade‐Level Content Strategies © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Points of Emphasis 1. 2. 3. 4.
Evidence‐Based Instruction Grade‐Level Content INSTRUCTIONAL Strategies Strategies •
Beyond Typical Instruction © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Learning Outcomes of CCSS‐MP
(McCallum, 2011) © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Learning Outcomes of CCSS‐MP These are BIG challenges for students with disabilities and those that are struggling. It will only happen if it is purposefully facilitated through teacher
INSTRUCTION!
(McCallum, 2011) © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Essential Question for Teachers • Essential Question – What did I do “instructionally different” to support learning for the struggling students? – “Typical” Instruction is not sufficient to support struggling students, especially students with disabilities.
• Asked during instructional planning and after instructional delivery!!! © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Why do we need Intensive Intervention? • “Validated programs are not universally effective programs; 3 percent to 5 percent of students need more help (Fuchs et al., 2008). – Why do some people still need root canals after going to the best dentist two times a year and brushing their teeth 2‐3 times per day and flossing…….??????
• Students with intensive needs often require 10–30 times more practice than peers to learn new information (Gersten et al., 2008).
“To every complex problem, there is a simple solution… that doesn’t work” Mark Twain
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What Are Evidence‐Based Practices? • “Evidence‐based practices (EBPs) are instructional techniques with meaningful research support that represent critical tools in bridging the research‐to‐ practice gap and improving student outcomes” (Cook & Cook, 2011, p. 2). • An evidence‐based special education professional practice is a strategy or intervention designed for use by special educators and intended to support the education of individuals with exceptional learning needs (Council for Exceptional Children, 2008).
Implementation of Evidence‐Based Practices and Programs for Students With Disabilities • Key considerations – Identify the most important elements for mathematics development – Focus on practices to help children develop these elements – Look for mathematics programs that embed evidence‐based practices
Learning Processes‐NMAP 2008 • 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. NMAP, 2008 © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Say Hello to the 900 Pound Gorilla in the room named: DR. INSTRUCTION
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Instructional Practices‐NMAP 2008 Research on students who are low achievers, have difficulties in mathematics, or have 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.
NMAP, 2008
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Instructional Practices Research on students who are low achievers, have difficulties in mathematics, or have 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. NMAP, 2008 © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Breakout Activity • Review the Intervention Components of effective Mathematics Instruction for struggling students. – Identify and discuss areas of convergence
• Discuss the general knowledge of instructional leaders at the state level, regional level, local level, and school level, and classroom level around these instructional components. – Is this general knowledge base well developed? © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Convergence is GOOD!!!
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
25
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 1
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary 3. Whole Group Instruction •
Balance of explicit and inquiry based instruction
4. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Both struggling students, BUT also advanced students
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 1
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary 3. Whole Group Instruction •
Balance of explicit and inquiry based instruction
4. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Both struggling students, BUT also advanced students
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 2
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary •
Prioritization‐Grade Level Emphasis
3. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Front‐loading Opportunities (e.g., pre‐teaching)
4. Whole Group Instruction •
Emphasis is on more supported instruction
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 2
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary •
Prioritization‐‐‐Grade Level emphasis
3. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Front‐loading Opportunities (e.g., pre‐teaching
4. Whole Group Instruction •
Emphasis is on more supported instruction
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Fluency Activities General Components (Codding, Burns, & Lukito, 2011) – – – – – – –
No more than 5‐10 minutes Differentiated based on student performance Target set of Facts Multiple Opportunities Feedback including a Correction Procedure Daily Distributed Practice Progress Monitoring
Specific Strategies – Cover Copy Compare (e.g., Poncy et al, 2006) – Incremental Rehearsal (e.g., Burns, 2005) – Flash Card Practice based on above general components © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Essential Vocabulary • General (Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002; Riccomini et al, 2015) – Language of mathematics should become normal part of instruction, curriculum, and assessment • Identified list of essential vocabulary • Use a variety of strategies • Explicit Strategies (e.g., Beach, Sanchez, Flynn, & O’Connor, 2015)
• Specific Strategies – Graphic Organizers (e.g., Archer & Hughes, 2011) • Frayer Model
– Keyword Mnemonic Strategy (e.g., Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Fulk, 1990) – Other Vocabulary Strategies (e.g., Marzano, 2004) © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Whole Group & Small Group Instructional Opportunities • Teacher‐Student Interactions‐ – Balance of Inquiry and Explicit Instruction • Guided Inquiry
– Explicit Instruction ‐ NMAP 2008 • Direct explanation • Modeling, guided and independent practice
– High student engagement • Lots of opportunities to respond • Lots of guided practice with immediate feedback
– Scaffolding to support learning (Archer & Hughes, 2011) – Review of essential pre‐skills © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Instructional Approaches • Concrete to Representational to Abstract – Purposeful progressions from concrete models to pictorial representations to Abstract
• Developing Deep Conceptual Understanding through the use of multiple representations – Using Mnemonics at the appropriate time – Understanding versus remembering a mnemonic
• Instructional Scaffolding Progressions to develop problem solving skills – Schema‐Based Instruction (SBI) – Content Scaffolding Progressions
• Specific and Targeted Retention Strategies – Based on data and priorities – Spaced Learning Overtime
• Interleaved Worked out Solutions – Worked out solutions can support and facilitate learning
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions 100% Math Proficiency
Teacher Content & Instructional Knowledge
Instruction Matters
References August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Synthesis: Instruction and professional development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second‐language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel of Language‐Minority Children and Youth (pp. 321‐335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Beck, I. L., & Beck, M. E. (2012). Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys. New York, NY: Guilford. Birsh, J. R. (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J., Tarver, S. G., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at‐ risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Thinking and communicating clearly about evidence‐based practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). Classifying the state of evidence for special education professional practices: CEC practice study manual. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Dunst, C. J., Simkus, A., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Effects of reading to infants and toddlers on early language development. CELLreviews, 5(4), 1‐7. Available at http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v5_n4.pdf Dunst, C. J., Valentine, A., Raab, M., & Hamby, D. W. (2013). Relationship between child participation in everyday activities and early literacy and language development. CELLreviews, 6(1), 1‐16. Available at http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v6_n1.pdf Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K. N., Hamlett, C. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Effects of small‐group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at‐risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan‐Thompson, S., and Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi‐tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009‐4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
References
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Kaiser, A. P., & Roberts, M. Y. (2011). Advances in early communication and language intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 298‐309. doi:10.1177/1053815111429968 Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy‐Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 111‐130. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jecp.2012.08.010 McCollum, J. (2015). From qualities of interaction to intervention practices: Using what comes naturally. In DEC Recommended Practices: Enhancing Services to Young Children with Disabilities and their Families (87‐97). Los Angeles, CA: The Division for Early Childhood. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence‐based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Sandall, S. R., & Schwartz, I. S. (2008). Building Blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Smartt, S. M., & Glaser, D. R. (2010). Next STEPS in literacy instruction: Connecting assessments to effective interventions. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Intensive%20Interventions %20for%20Students%20Struggling%20in%20Reading%20%26%20Math.pdf
Topics for Today • Designing instruction to help students of all skill levels achieve success in mathematics. • Components of Effective Math Instruction – Tier 1 and Tier 2
• Structural Features of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Instruction and Intervention Supports © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Evidence‐Based Practices Within a Tiered Framework • Multitiered Systems of Supports – High‐quality core instruction with evidence‐based instructional practices and research‐based intervention at varying levels of intensity
• Essential components of Multitiered Systems of Supports – – – –
Screening Progress monitoring Multilevel prevention system Data‐based decision making
Evidence‐Based Practices Within a Tiered Framework Primary (Tier 1)
Secondary (Tier 2)
Intensive (Tier 3)
Instruction/ Intervention Approach
Comprehensive research‐based curriculum
Standardized, targeted small‐group instruction
Individualized, based on student data
Group Size
Classwide (with some small‐group instruction)
Three to seven students
No more than three students
Monitor Progress
Once per term
At least once per month
Weekly
Population Served
All students
At‐risk students
Significant and persistent learning needs
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions 100% Math Proficiency
Teacher Content & Instructional Knowledge © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions 100% Math Proficiency
Teacher Content & Instructional Knowledge
Instruction Matters © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
High Quality Instruction
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
Evidence‐Based Instruction
High Quality Instruction
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
Evidence‐Based Instruction INSTRUCTIONAL Strategies High Quality Instruction
Strategies © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Definitions
Evidence‐Based Instruction INSTRUCTIONAL Strategies High Quality Instruction Grade‐Level Content Strategies © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Utah MTSS 3‐Tier Points of Emphasis 1. 2. 3. 4.
Evidence‐Based Instruction Grade‐Level Content INSTRUCTIONAL Strategies Strategies •
Beyond Typical Instruction © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Learning Outcomes of CCSS‐MP
(McCallum, 2011) © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Learning Outcomes of CCSS‐MP These are BIG challenges for students with disabilities and those that are struggling. It will only happen if it is purposefully facilitated through teacher
INSTRUCTION!
(McCallum, 2011) © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Essential Question for Teachers • Essential Question – What did I do “instructionally different” to support learning for the struggling students? – “Typical” Instruction is not sufficient to support struggling students, especially students with disabilities.
• Asked during instructional planning and after instructional delivery!!! © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Why do we need Intensive Intervention? • “Validated programs are not universally effective programs; 3 percent to 5 percent of students need more help (Fuchs et al., 2008). – Why do some people still need root canals after going to the best dentist two times a year and brushing their teeth 2‐3 times per day and flossing…….??????
• Students with intensive needs often require 10–30 times more practice than peers to learn new information (Gersten et al., 2008).
“To every complex problem, there is a simple solution… that doesn’t work” Mark Twain
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What Are Evidence‐Based Practices? • “Evidence‐based practices (EBPs) are instructional techniques with meaningful research support that represent critical tools in bridging the research‐to‐ practice gap and improving student outcomes” (Cook & Cook, 2011, p. 2). • An evidence‐based special education professional practice is a strategy or intervention designed for use by special educators and intended to support the education of individuals with exceptional learning needs (Council for Exceptional Children, 2008).
Implementation of Evidence‐Based Practices and Programs for Students With Disabilities • Key considerations – Identify the most important elements for mathematics development – Focus on practices to help children develop these elements – Look for mathematics programs that embed evidence‐based practices
Learning Processes‐NMAP 2008 • 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. NMAP, 2008 © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Say Hello to the 900 Pound Gorilla in the room named: DR. INSTRUCTION
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Instructional Practices‐NMAP 2008 Research on students who are low achievers, have difficulties in mathematics, or have 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.
NMAP, 2008
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Instructional Practices Research on students who are low achievers, have difficulties in mathematics, or have 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. NMAP, 2008 © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Breakout Activity • Review the Intervention Components of effective Mathematics Instruction for struggling students. – Identify and discuss areas of convergence
• Discuss the general knowledge of instructional leaders at the state level, regional level, local level, and school level, and classroom level around these instructional components. – Is this general knowledge base well developed? © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Convergence is GOOD!!!
© Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
25
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 1
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary 3. Whole Group Instruction •
Balance of explicit and inquiry based instruction
4. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Both struggling students, BUT also advanced students
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 1
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary 3. Whole Group Instruction •
Balance of explicit and inquiry based instruction
4. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Both struggling students, BUT also advanced students
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 2
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary •
Prioritization‐Grade Level Emphasis
3. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Front‐loading Opportunities (e.g., pre‐teaching)
4. Whole Group Instruction •
Emphasis is on more supported instruction
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
What does this look like at the classroom level? • Lesson Structure Tier 2
EBPs
1. Fluency Activities 2. Review of Standards and Essential Vocabulary •
Prioritization‐‐‐Grade Level emphasis
3. Small Group Instruction • •
Teacher directed small group instruction Front‐loading Opportunities (e.g., pre‐teaching
4. Whole Group Instruction •
Emphasis is on more supported instruction
5. Closure & Summary of Lesson © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Fluency Activities General Components (Codding, Burns, & Lukito, 2011) – – – – – – –
No more than 5‐10 minutes Differentiated based on student performance Target set of Facts Multiple Opportunities Feedback including a Correction Procedure Daily Distributed Practice Progress Monitoring
Specific Strategies – Cover Copy Compare (e.g., Poncy et al, 2006) – Incremental Rehearsal (e.g., Burns, 2005) – Flash Card Practice based on above general components © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Essential Vocabulary • General (Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002; Riccomini et al, 2015) – Language of mathematics should become normal part of instruction, curriculum, and assessment • Identified list of essential vocabulary • Use a variety of strategies • Explicit Strategies (e.g., Beach, Sanchez, Flynn, & O’Connor, 2015)
• Specific Strategies – Graphic Organizers (e.g., Archer & Hughes, 2011) • Frayer Model
– Keyword Mnemonic Strategy (e.g., Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Fulk, 1990) – Other Vocabulary Strategies (e.g., Marzano, 2004) © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Whole Group & Small Group Instructional Opportunities • Teacher‐Student Interactions‐ – Balance of Inquiry and Explicit Instruction • Guided Inquiry
– Explicit Instruction ‐ NMAP 2008 • Direct explanation • Modeling, guided and independent practice
– High student engagement • Lots of opportunities to respond • Lots of guided practice with immediate feedback
– Scaffolding to support learning (Archer & Hughes, 2011) – Review of essential pre‐skills © Paul J. Riccomini 2016 [email protected]
Instructional Approaches • Concrete to Representational to Abstract – Purposeful progressions from concrete models to pictorial representations to Abstract
• Developing Deep Conceptual Understanding through the use of multiple representations – Using Mnemonics at the appropriate time – Understanding versus remembering a mnemonic
• Instructional Scaffolding Progressions to develop problem solving skills – Schema‐Based Instruction (SBI) – Content Scaffolding Progressions
• Specific and Targeted Retention Strategies – Based on data and priorities – Spaced Learning Overtime
• Interleaved Worked out Solutions – Worked out solutions can support and facilitate learning
Components of Effective Mathematics Programs Mathematics Curriculum & Interventions
Assessment & Data-Based Decisions 100% Math Proficiency
Teacher Content & Instructional Knowledge
Instruction Matters
References August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Synthesis: Instruction and professional development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second‐language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel of Language‐Minority Children and Youth (pp. 321‐335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Beck, I. L., & Beck, M. E. (2012). Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys. New York, NY: Guilford. Birsh, J. R. (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J., Tarver, S. G., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at‐ risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Thinking and communicating clearly about evidence‐based practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). Classifying the state of evidence for special education professional practices: CEC practice study manual. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Dunst, C. J., Simkus, A., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Effects of reading to infants and toddlers on early language development. CELLreviews, 5(4), 1‐7. Available at http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v5_n4.pdf Dunst, C. J., Valentine, A., Raab, M., & Hamby, D. W. (2013). Relationship between child participation in everyday activities and early literacy and language development. CELLreviews, 6(1), 1‐16. Available at http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v6_n1.pdf Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K. N., Hamlett, C. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Effects of small‐group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at‐risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan‐Thompson, S., and Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi‐tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009‐4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
References
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Kaiser, A. P., & Roberts, M. Y. (2011). Advances in early communication and language intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 298‐309. doi:10.1177/1053815111429968 Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy‐Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 111‐130. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jecp.2012.08.010 McCollum, J. (2015). From qualities of interaction to intervention practices: Using what comes naturally. In DEC Recommended Practices: Enhancing Services to Young Children with Disabilities and their Families (87‐97). Los Angeles, CA: The Division for Early Childhood. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence‐based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Sandall, S. R., & Schwartz, I. S. (2008). Building Blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Smartt, S. M., & Glaser, D. R. (2010). Next STEPS in literacy instruction: Connecting assessments to effective interventions. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Intensive%20Interventions %20for%20Students%20Struggling%20in%20Reading%20%26%20Math.pdf
