Mathematics RtI: One Program's Efforts to Enhance Teacher Candidates' Knowledge and Skills David Allsopp, David Hoppey, Stacy Hahn, Aimee Frier, Scot Rademaker University of South Florida
Presentation Outline • Program Structure & Sequence • Summer Institute Description • Individual Math Intervention Project (IMIP) Description • Research Questions • Research Design • Findings • Implications
Structure of the Program Competency based program of study that: • Focuses on developing teachers as problem solver • Integrates content across a logical developmental sequence • Scaffolds expectations for learning from an acquisition to generalization framework • Emphasizes collaborative teaching structures and situates the program to engage in interdisciplinary partnerships • Provides graduates with supported opportunities to gain the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions to meet the needs of students with disabilities
Program Sequence Te Teacher as Problem Solver Team Teaching Approach Continuous Progress Monitoring: Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions Teacher as Problem Solver
Purposes of the Summer Institute • Work with a partnership school to provide students with learning/cognitive based disabilities extended school learning experiences in reading and mathematics • Provide special education pre-service teacher candidates opportunities to implement and receive feedback on the use of research supported reading and mathematics instructional practices for students with disabilities. • Provide special education pre-service teacher candidates with opportunities to plan, implement and manage classroom instruction responsibilities and experience the realities of this with high levels of support. • Provide special education pre-service teacher candidates with opportunities to teach collaboratively and reflect on and learn from both the benefits and challenges of effective collaboration. • Provide special education pre-service teacher candidates opportunities to experience interacting with school personnel and students’ families in professional ways.
Summer Institute Logistics • Third semester of program • 2 week seminar (occurs before beginning of practicum) • 3 days per week/4 hours per day • 5 week practicum • 3 days per week/4 hours per day • Partnership with a Charter School for Students with Disabilities (K-12/Transition) • Assigned to classrooms of 4-8 students with a co-teach partner • Supervised by program faculty/doctoral students
Individual Math Intervention Project (IMIP) This assignment has 3 parts. • Part 1: Student Selection/description of needs, strengths, and interests • Part 2: Intervention Development (See handouts) • A. Pre-Assessment • B. Hypothesis/Intervention Design • C. Progress Monitoring Plan • Part 3: Intervention Implementation, Evaluation, and Final Analysis • A. Session Notes/Ongoing data based decision making • B. Instructional Timeline including strategies and progress monitoring tools used • C. Post-Assessment • D. Student Performance Reflective Summary and Future Recommendations • E. Weekly and Final Reflections on what the pre-service teacher learned
Mathematics Literacy Initiative Structure for TC Daily Intervention Sessions Instructional Phases - (see handout) Measure Progress & Make Instructional Decisions Problem Solve the New Build Proficiency
Overall Research Questions • What is the nature of pre-service special education teacher candidates’ implementation of individualized mathematics interventions that utilize research supported practices (IMIP)? • How does the analysis of students’ IMIP projects inform faculty about teacher candidates’ thinking related to data based instructional decision-making in mathematics?
Research Design • Qualitative analysis of teacher candidate performance artifacts (Individualized Mathematics Instruction Project – IMIP). • Sampling – random sample of 13 teacher candidates’ IMIP from the same cohort (N=36) • Pilot – 5 teacher candidates’ IMIP representing a range of overall performance (lowest-highest) • Instrumentation – IMIP Evaluation Form (see example) • Analysis – Open coding process • Individual researchers evaluated one of 5 IMIP • Researchers met to compare evaluations of first two areas of IMIP Evaluation Form • One researcher reviewed all completed evaluation forms and generated initial codes • All five researchers met to review codes, discuss, and reach consensus including themes/families/examples
Preliminary Findings Areas of Analysis • Student Needs • Assessment • Intervention Design • Planning • Instructional Practices • NCTM Processes Research Question #1: What is the nature of preservice special education teacher candidates’ implementation of individualized mathematics interventions that utilize research supported effective practices?
Assessment Themes Use of a Continuous Cycle of Assessment Use of particular assessment techniques over others Connection/comparison of data across assessment cycle (pre, ongoing, post) Instructional decisions apparent at particular points and not others Focus on certain components (pre, ongoing, post) rather than all Number Knowledge Test; Student Interests; CRA Assessment OVER error pattern analysis and flexible interview Limited Parallel to which assessment component TC completed
Intervention Design Themes Difficulty with isolating scope and sequence of target concept/ Skill Difficulty articulating the function (“because”) of the mathematics difficulty the student is demonstrating Connection between initial intervention design and subsequent intervention sessions Consistent completion of data/ planning forms Level of clarity/specificity of intervention across sessions Lack of complete understanding of the targeted math concept & relationships to other concepts (Number Sense, Operations, Algebraic Thinking) Lack of complete understanding of the targeted math concept & relationships to other concepts (Number Sense, Operations, Algebraic Thinking) Limited in some cases; Evident in others Limited in some cases; Evident in other cases Level of clarity/specificity increases across sessions for most cases
Planning Themes Instructional decision-making/real-time planning within lessons Connection between pre-intervention planning (daily planning guides) and data/information recorded on daily session notes Clarity/specificity in describing thinking from session to session Limited in a few; Evident in most Limited but somewhat improved across sessions Improves across sessions for all but one case
Research Supported Instructional Practices: Themes • Evidence of use more apparent than reflection about use of RSP • Example: Weekly Reflections • Lack direct connections between use of a specific practice to student learning • General descriptions/examples of RSP • Example: Explicit Modeling • Lack references to/examples of specific EM technqiues such as “think alouds,” examples/non-examples, cueing, visuals, etc. • Little variation in how RSP were applied across sessions • Example: Advance Organizers/Graphic Organizers • Same LIP procedures and GO used across sessions
Preliminary Findings Assessment Intervention Design Daily Lessons Instructional Decisions Research Question #2: How does the analysis students’ IMIP projects inform faculty about teacher candidates’ data based instructional decision-making in mathematics?
Logical Progression of DBDM Assessment
DBDM Discussion Points • How well students designed the project did not necessarily correspond to the way the project was implemented and monitored. • Some students’ intervention design was appropriate but they had difficulty effectively adapting instruction using ongoing data. • On the other hand, other students did not effectively design an appropriate intervention but used ongoing data effectively to meet students needs. • 1 of the 5 students was able to do both. • In this analysis a lack of understanding of the math concepts that the pre-service teachers were teaching was apparent which subsequently influenced the effectiveness of DBDM.
How Can this Research Inform Teacher Education Programs? • Need to embed Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) throughout the program • Developmental nature of learning to teaching • especially for learning to teach students with disabilities or students who struggle with mathematics • Need engaged scholars who find opportunities to provide targeted field experiences, ongoing instruction, and continuous feedback for pre-service teachers on providing effective mathematics interventions • Need for faculty across SPED and mathematics education to become knowledgeable about the needs of mathematical and disability related learning needs for students with exceptionalities
Next Steps • Revise instrumentation & analysis procedures as appropriate based on pilot • Complete analysis of remaining eight IMIP from sample; determine if saturation is apparent • Finalize interpretations • Target areas in program for enhancement/change (e.g., incorporate fidelity checks) • Dissemination
Contact Information • David Allsopp - email@example.com • David Hoppey – firstname.lastname@example.org • Stacy Hahn – email@example.com • Aimee Frier - firstname.lastname@example.org • Scot Rademaker - email@example.com