Intervention - Kentucky Center for Mathematics



TO: The Committee for Mathematics Achievement

FROM: Alice Gabbard, Director of Diagnostic Intervention

Jonathan Thomas, Assistant Director of Diagnostic Intervention

RE: Diagnostic Intervention Programs

DATE: November 5, 2007

Revised Graphs

Taken from the University of Cincinnati Evaluation Services Center analysis, KCM has developed revised graphs that show program comparisons for first grade, the predominant level at which both programs were used. Additional graphs have been posted to the KCM/Evaluation & Research webpage. As requested by the CMA in September, the final evaluation summary will describe the differences in the intervention programs implemented.

Mathematics Achievement Fund Request for Application Announcement; Technical Assistance

On October 15th, the Kentucky Department of Education released a Request for Application regarding the Mathematics Achievement Fund grants for primary diagnostic intervention programs with a due date of December 17th. In support of this RFA, representatives from the KDE have organized a series of technical assistance meetings for potential MAF applicants. Alice Gabbard and Jonathan Thomas contributed presentation slides and handouts and attended two of these meetings to inform participants about the work of the KCM and about the two supported intervention programs: Math Recovery and Number Worlds.

The KCM has also publicized this grant opportunity to schools by sending notices via: administrator emails taken from the 2006/2007 KDE Schools Directory; the math teacher list serve; a state-wide press release; various conference displays/presentations; Kentucky Educational Coops, and additional KCM email recipients.

Focus Groups—Follow-up for 2006/2007 Data

In follow-up to the first year standardized evaluation data two researchers from the University of Cincinnati Evaluation Services Center are conducting focus groups with 6 Math Recovery MITs and with 5—8 Number Worlds MITs; Alice Gabbard and Jonathan Thomas are also attending. Results of the focus groups will be included in the final evaluation report.

Considerations for Selecting a Primary Grades Diagnostic Intervention Program

Since schools are free to choose any supplemental diagnostic intervention program when applying for the Mathematics Achievement Fund grant, KCM has compiled (from the CMA middle grades rubric and training experience) and uploaded the attached document, Considerations for Selecting a Primary Grades Intervention Program, with 40 questions to guide the selection process. The intent is to post on the KCM website an invitation for vendors of primary diagnostic intervention programs to provide to KCM sample materials and answers to the questions in the Considerations document (with slight variation—i.e. instead of the wording used for schools “To what extent …?” the wording would be “How does the program …?”). KCM would then check for accuracy and post to the website the vendor answers with a disclaimer.

QUESTION: Does the CMA endorse the recommendation that schools use this document for selecting primary grades diagnostic intervention programs?

2007/2008 Intervention Students Directly Served by MITs

| |Number Worlds |Math Recovery |Total |

|Kindergarten |395 |31 |426 |

|First Grade |501 |221 |722 |

|Second Grade |673 |27 |700 |

|Third Grade |653 |33 |686 |

|Total |2222 |312 |2535 |

Additional struggling students are served indirectly through collaboration or team teaching.

Literacy/Numeracy Development Comparison

In order to raise the awareness of teachers, parents, and administrators about the complexity of early numeracy development, Jonathan Thomas prepared the attached Literacy/Numeracy Development Comparison showing the parallels of numeracy development with the more familiar progression of literacy development. This chart has been posted to the KCM website (under Intervention/Resources) and distribute to MITs who can use it when discussing early numeracy topics with families or other teachers.

KCTM 07 Conference primary grades presentations by Directors, RCs, and MITs

• Family math games

• Make a “DIFFERENCE” with subtraction

• Making sense of the numbers game

• Differentiation for struggling primary students

• Conceptual place value: An elaborated framework for understanding

• Use eMath tools to race ahead in math

• Different ways to address the 3 aspects of number

• Making sense of number sense

• Games and activities for structuring number to 20

We are expecting a similar contribution to the 2008 KTLC Conference.

2007/2008 Data Collection

The evaluation plan of the primary diagnostic intervention programs does not call for the identification of a comparison group during the 2007/2008 school year, although past comparison students and past intervention students will be tested in spring of 2008. This decision was made in light of specific ethical consideration regarding the formation and treatment of a control group with similar performance characteristics as well as the logistical challenges of including these individuals in the evaluation. Currently, KCM is exploring particular evaluation models for 2008/2009 that alleviate these constraints.

The data collection measures planned for 2007/2008 are listed below:

-----------------------

NUMBER WORLDS

Mean Student

Group Size

6.94 Students

Mean Instructional

Time per Student

91.25 hours

MATH RECOVERY

Mean Student

Group Size

1.00 Students

NUMBER WORLDS

Mean Student

Group Size

6.94 Students

Mean Instructional

Time per Student

91.25 hours

MATH RECOVERY

Mean Student

Group Size

1.00 Students

Mean Instructional

Time per Student

28.27 hours

2006/2007 FIRST GRADE INTERVENTION

TERRA NOVA ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM

n=252

n=159

n=66

Comparison Group

t = 27.2

df = 251

Significance = .000

Number Worlds

t = 23.062

df = 158

Significance = .000

Math Recovery

t = 19.10

df = 65

Significance = .000

Scaled Score

524

519

554

465

437

454

[pic]

Mean Instructional

Time per Student

28.27 hours

n=252

n=159

n=66

14

5

9

38

34

70

[pic]

|Instrument |Purpose |Participants |

|Terra Nova (TN) |To measure gains in student achievement |Intervention Students |

|Fox Adds Up (FAU) | | |

|Not mandatory for returning MITs | | |

| | | |

|Learning Mathematics for Teaching |To measure changes in MITs’ knowledge of |MITs |

|Survey (LMT) |appropriate grade level content/PCK | |

| | | |

| | | |

|Math Beliefs Survey |To assess changes in the MITs’ mathematics |MITs |

|(Noblitt/Folleta) |beliefs | |

| | | |

|Attitudes and Experiences Survey |To assess MITs’, administrators’, and |MITs, |

|(KCM) |participating families’ opinions regarding|Administrators, |

| |program structure, support, and effects |Families of Intervention |

| | |Students |

| | |MITs |

| |To assess MITs’ opinions regarding program |MITs |

|Mid-Year Report (KDE) |structure, support, and effects | |

| | | |

|Focus Groups | | |

|End-Year Report (KDE) | | |

2006/2007 1ST GRADE

Terra Nova

National Percentiles

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download