Within a multitiered system of support (MTSS), students who struggle to learn mathematics often receive core instruction and supplemental intervention in different settings, with different teachers and different sets of curriculum materials, all of which can result in poor alignment. This curriculum crosswalk describes how three sets of materials commonly used to provide core instruction and intervention differ with regard to mathematics practices and vocabulary. The results indicate that there is little overlap among all three programs for the majority (n = 6) of the mathematics practices, and very little overlap in mathematics vocabulary (ranging from 6.3 to 24 percent). We also provide a set of research–based instructional recommendations intended to help teachers address gaps and improve alignment of core instruction and intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherA. L., & HughesC. A. (2011). Exploring the foundations of explicit instruction. In ArcherA. L. & HughesC. A. (Eds.), Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching (pp. 1–22). New York: Guilford.
2.
BouckE. C., SatsangiR., & ParkJ. (2017). The concrete–representational–abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence–based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517721712
3.
BryantD. P., BryantB. R., RobertsG., VaughnS., PfannenstielK. H., PorterfieldJ., et al. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first–grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78, 7–23.
4.
BryantD. P., PfannenstielK. H., & BryantB. (2015). Early numeracy intervention: Levels 1 and 2. Austin, TX: Psycho–Educational Services.
EngelmannS., & CarnineD. (2003). SRA connecting math concepts: Levels B, C, D, E, F. New York: McGraw–Hill Education.
7.
EngelmannS., & ColvinG. (2006). Rubric for identifying authentic direct instruction programs. Eugene, OR: Engelmann Foundation.
8.
ForsythS. R., & PowellS. R. (2017). Differences in the mathematics–vocabulary knowledge of fifth–grade students with and without learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 231–245.
9.
FuchsL. S., SterbaS. K., FuchsD., & MaloneA. S. (2016). Does evidence–based fractions intervention address the needs of very low–performing students?Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 662–677.
10.
FusonK. C. (2013). Math expressions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
11.
GerstenR. (2016). What we are learning about mathematics interventions and conducting research on mathematics interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 684–688.
12.
GerstenR., BeckmannS., ClarkeB., FoegenA., MarshL., StarJ. R., et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009–4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
13.
GerstenR., ChardD. J., JayanthiM., BakerS. K., MorphyP., & FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
14.
HughesE. M., PowellS. R., & StevensE. A. (2016). Supporting clear and concise mathematics language: Instead of that, say this. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49, 7–17.
15.
JitendraA. K., NelsonG., PullesS. M., KissA. J., & HouseworthJ. (2016). Is mathematical representation of problems an evidence–based strategy for students with mathematics difficulties?Exceptional Children, 83, 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625062
16.
KurzA., ElliottS. N., WehbyJ. H., & SmithsonJ. L. (2010). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 131–145.
17.
MarshallJ. C. (2016). The highly effective teacher: 7 classroom–tested practices that foster student success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
18.
MarshallJ. C., SmartJ., LotterC., & SirbuC. (2011). Comparative analysis of two inquiry observational protocols: Striving to better understand the quality of teacher–facilitated inquiry–based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 306–315.
19.
MillerS. P., & HudsonP. J. (2007). Using evidence–based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 47–57.
MolinaC. (2012). The problem with math is English: A language–focused approach to helping all students develop a deeper understanding of mathematics. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
22.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2017). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2017. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
29.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards math. Washington, DC: Authors.
30.
National Research Council, & Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31.
PowellS. R., & NelsonG. (2017). An investigation of the mathematics–vocabulary knowledge of first–grade students. The Elementary School Journal, 117, 664–686.
32.
RiccominiP. J., SmithG. W., HughesE. M., & FriesK. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 31, 235–252.
33.
SteinM. K., EngleR. A., SmithM. S., & HughesE. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.
34.
SteinM., KinderD., RolfK., SilbertJ., & CarnineD. (2018). Direct instruction mathematics (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
StockardJ., WoodT. W., CoughlinC., & KhouryC. R. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta–analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88, 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919.
WoodwardJ., BeckmannS., DriscollM., FrankeM., HerzigP., JitendraA., et al. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012–4055). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
