Evaluating Three Elementary Mathematics Programs for Presence of Eight Research-Based Instructional Design Principles

Abstract

The present review builds on earlier research that evaluated the curricular features of core math programs to improve the performances of students with or at risk for mathematics difficulties. In this review, three elementary math programs, at Grades 2 and 4, were evaluated for the presence of eight instructional principles. Math intervention studies have empirically validated these principles for promoting math proficiency of students struggling with mathematics. Data were collected via a researcher-developed scoring rubric. Findings indicate that adherence to the instructional principles varied markedly within and across programs. In addition, the results indicated that the current textbooks contain a general lack of explicit instruction and provide too few practice opportunities to teach material to mastery. Implications for future curricular reviews and enhancing core math instruction are discussed.

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

“…An explicit curriculum offers opportunities for teachers to (a) facilitate high-quality practice opportunities for students, (b) deliver clear and consistent demonstrations of new and complex mathematical concepts and skills, and (c) provide timely academic feedback to address student errors and misconceptions (Doabler et al, 2012). For example, an explicit math curriculum will provide specific teaching directions on how to demonstrate and explain key math concepts, offer students opportunities to practice taught concepts, and deliver immediate feedback.…”

The Effect of Success Maker Software on State Scores in Elementary School Math

“…Math teachers should teach students conceptually in order for students to (a) better understand math concepts (Anderson, 2012) and (b) improve their proficiency as measured by standardized tests (Genao, 2013). Professional development (PD) helps (a) math teachers to better teach the math curriculum (Dessoff, 2012) and (b) students when being taught by knowledgeable teachers (Barrett, Butler, & Toma, 2012) who improved their specific instructional practices and use a large variety of math resources (Doabler, Fien, Nelson-Walker, & Baker, 2012).…”

Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention

“…This framework differs from business-as-usual classroom instruction by remediating delayed skills (e.g., whole-number knowledge) to consolidate the fundamental knowledge necessary for success on the intervention's targeted skills (e.g., fractions knowledge); by incorporating instructional design to compensate for at-risk students' limitations in linguistic, cognitive, or socioemotional processing (e.g., using clear, direct language; relying on worked examples; increasing motivation, on-task behavior, and persistence in the face of academic challenge); and by providing smaller group size to ensure many opportunities to respond and receive corrective feedback (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Malone, 2017;Gersten et al, 2008). Most classroom instruction lacks these features (Doabler, Fien, Nelson, & Baker, 2012;Sood & Jitendra, 2007), without which the academic progress of at-risk students suffers (Kroesenbergen & Van Luit, 2003).…”