Transcript Document

Inclusive Education, Intensive, Personalized
Education, and Mathematics Instruction
2012 OSEP Project Directors Conference
Washington, DC
July 24, 2012
Russell Gersten, Ph.D.
Director, Instructional Research Group
Professor Emeritus, University of Oregon
Pick one:
1. I like mathematics
2. I love mathematics
3. I can live with it or without it
4. I try to avoid mathematics
What do special educators need to
know in the context of
Common Core State Standards &
Inclusive Education?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Goals of the Common Core in
Mathematics
FRACTIONS (teacher understanding and
proficiency must precede improved
instruction)
Other aspects of algebra readiness
Research base on effective instruction
(and the gaping holes)
RtI in mathematics: strengths and
vulnerabilities
 Focus on fewer Mathematical Ideas and
Procedures in depth
• Why? To ensure understanding as well as
proficiency & fluency
• Why? Understanding of arithmetic is key to
success in algebra & more advanced mathematics
• Why? In part mathematics proficiency involves
higher levels of abstraction & abstracting out
• Why else more depth & time on each topic?
Mastery & proficiency critical…endless spiraling
not good
 Capitalize on insight from cognitive
research (Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 2001)
and working knowledge of mathematicians
• Conceptual & procedural knowledge develop
in a reciprocal fashion
• Problem solving must be integrated into the
mix as it enriches both (provides meaning to
the computational & procedural work,
provides a logic for why things are done)
 Coherence
• Includes demonstrating connections
between the various ideas in geometry &
arithmetic/algebra & between arithmetic &
algebra
• Involves allowing students to solve
problems, at times, in a variety of ways
 Precision of mathematical language
 Special education students must work
on all these fronts. Older belief that
practice on computation is the only
means to teach does not address
Common Core standards and will be
increasingly frowned on.
 Many American teachers do not know
much about fractions (Ball, 1990; Ma,
1999)
 Many teachers struggle with both
solving fraction problems & explaining,
for example, what division of a
fraction is
 Many teachers do not have automatic
access to various common interpretations
of fractions
• Part of whole
• Parts of a whole (e.g. 7/3)
• Parts of a set
• A specific point on a number line
(measurement implications)
• Equivalent to division
 Students learn fractions as part of a
whole in grade 3. Example:
• Half of the class went to museum the
first day. There are 18 students in the
class. How many went?
• Put 9/4 on a number line
 To teach fractions well, teachers must
understand the mathematics
 Special education students often are
unlikely to intuit all the
interpretations & nuances
 At a minimum, special educators should
know the interpretations of fractions:
• part(s) of units such as circles, pizzas, buildings
• parts of a set
• equivalent to division
• a point on a number line determined by
numerator & denominator
 Achievable objectives through PD & work
with mathematics educators or texts
 Properties of Arithmetic & Multiplication
• Commutative
• Associative Property
• Distributive Property
 Fractions
• It is beginning of road to abstraction. Example: one
number but looks like two numbers (e.g. 4/7)
 Word Problems (path to abstraction)
 Fact Fluency (to be able to understand
mathematics)
 Gateway course…true for both algebra
1&2
 Both require a full year of successful
navigation of abstractions
 Universal graduation requirement &
high failure rates

Gersten, R., Beckman, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J.
R., Witzel, B., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Newman-Gonchar, R.,
Monahan, S., & Scott, L. (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, U.S. Department of Education.

Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P.,
Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics Instruction for Students with
Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Instructional
Components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202-1242.

Also see Center on Instruction website at
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/

Or google Center on Instruction, look for mathematics
(Note: may be removed Sept. 30, 2012)
 Must include foundational skills relevant to
grade level content
e.g. division for fractions, fractions for
simple linear equations
 Common Core Progressions are excellent source
http://ime.math.arizona.edu/progressions/#
 Interventions must include activities that cover
mathematical ideas but use some of the
empirical base on effective instruction for atrisk learners
 Screening measures strongest in K & 1
 In my view, grades 3 & up need
rethinking for both screening &
progress monitoring
 Do they measure what Common Core sets
as proficiency (understanding, problem
solving, representation & modeling of
mathematical ideas)?
 What do grades 4 to 8 screening measures
add above & beyond prior years’ state
assessment? Key question to ask
 Will interventionists teach to the test?
i.e. if progress monitoring measures focus
heavily on easy to score items
(computations, easy problems) will this
determine content of intervention?
 Given technology & advances with item
response theory, can progress monitoring
provide diagnostic information &
placement information?