Meta- analysis paper assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
530
Subject
Mathematics
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by catherinelong954328
1
Meta- Analysis on Math Interventions
Meta-Analysis of Math Intervention
Catherine V. Long
School Of Education. Liberty University
EDLC 530- Teaching Mathematics
Dr. Holter
Author Note
Catherine V. Long
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose .
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Catherine V. Long. Email:cvlong@liberty.edu
2
Meta- Analysis on Math Interventions
Summary
A Meta- analysis looks at data from multiple independent studies in order to determine a trend. The article “ Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities : A Meta- Analysis of Instructional Components” , discusses the highlighted need for effective mathematics
instruction based on empirically validated strategies and techniques. The article discusses that there has been much documentation of inadequate mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. ( Gersten et al., 2009). This meta-analysis focuses on experimental research that addressed instructional interventions for students with learning disabilities. There were three different research syntheses that involved meta- analytic procedures targeting aspects of instruction for students with math difficulties but there were still answers to be found nonetheless . In one of these research theories,(Swanson and Hoskyn ,1998) the results highlighted the beneficial impact of cognitive strategies and direct instruction models in math. Xin and Jitendra examined the impacts of representation techniques, computer -assisted instruction , strategy training and “other”. They found that computer -assisted instruction was the
most effective. Kroesbergen and Van Luit examined interventions in preparatory mathematics, basic skills, and problems solving strategies. They found interventions in the area of basic skills to be most effective. Although information found was helpful, neither Kroesbergen & Van Luit or Xin & Jitendra focused specifically on students with disabilities. The authors of “Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities : A Meta- Analysis of Instructional Components” believed that there was relevant empirical support for a research synthesis that focuses on mathematical interventions conducted for students with
3
Meta- Analysis on Math Interventions
learning disabilities. After an extensive search of 1971 to 1999 that was updated to August 2007,
a total of 44 researched studies matched criteria was the result. ( Gersten et al., 2009). Three criteria were used to make decision of study inclusion: Focus of the Study, Design of the Study & Participants in the study. After determining if the studies met final criteria the studies were then coded to decide the main information in the studies. Coding consisted of 3 phases that included Quality of Research Design ,Describing the studies and Determining the Nature of Independent Variables. Three studies were excluding during phase 2 coding. During phase 3 in the final analysis, the authors settled for four major categories for the studies which included” Approaches to instruction, Providing ongoing formative assessment data and feedback to teachers on students math performance, Providing data and feedback to students with LD on their math performance, and Peer assisted math instruction. After coding was completed operational definitions were provided for each major category.
The findings from the aggression analysis indicated that math interventions were generally effective across students, settings and measures. . ( Gersten et al., 2009). Use of heuristics was associated with an effect increase of 1.221 above the average adjusted effect of 0.51. Studies incorporating explicit instruction had larger treatment affects as well. Use of visuals by teachers only or by teachers and students together appeared to be ineffective unless combined with other instruction al components. ( Gersten et al., 2009).
Analysis
The major focus of this meta-analysis was on analyzing instructional components in math
intervention studies conducted with students with learning disabilities. ( Gersten et al., 2009). The authors of this article made it easy to read and understand results of the Meta-
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Meta- Analysis on Math Interventions
Analysis. The authors made it clear that in their final analysis they settled on four major categories. The four major categories were described, and operational definitions were presented for all four categories. The first category, Approaches to instruction and/or curriculum design had six instructional components listed in which each was broken down defined with examples given. The other three categories, Providing ongoing formative assessment data and feedback to teachers on students math performance, Providing data and feedback to students with LD on their math performance, and Peer assisted math instruction were all given equally clear definitions with examples provided. Teachers that work with students that have learning disabilities (math) can see clear data of effective interventions as this data analysis provides a table showing simple comparisons of all effects and a second table that shows the results of model comparisons of treatment effects. A
key difference between this and the seminal meta-analysis conducted by Swanson and Hoskyn is that the domain to instructional interventions in math was limited allowing the authors of this meta-analysis to focus on essential attributes of effective practice. ( Gersten et al., 2009).The effectiveness of each instructional component was examined individually and it was determined that asking students to set a goal and measure attainment of that goal and peer assisted learning within a class did not yield a mean effect size significantly greater then zero. All other instructional components in Table 1 produced significant impacts on math proficiency. Application
Attention was drawn to five instructional components in order of importance. As a
new teacher SPED teacher focusing on Math and Reading I benefited from learning which intervention were most effective with LD students. The first instructional component , Explicit
5
Meta- Analysis on Math Interventions
instruction, a mainstay feature in many special education programs, once again was a key feature of many studies included int his meet- analysis and had significant effect size. ( Gersten et al., 2009). I would apply explicit instruction by demonstrating step by step strategy for math problems. Giving clear instruction of task and showing students how to correctly work through the task may help improve their math skills. The use of the second instructional component, Visual representation, was supported by findings of the meta-analysis. Visual representation can be applied by using visuals during instruction such as visual pieces for fraction and counting tiles
for math problems. The third instruction component , sequence and /or range of examples is demonstrated by selecting and sequencing instructional examples. This can be applied by choosing a sequence that best fits the students need in my classroom. Student verbalization, the fourth ranked intervention , had a promising finding that the process of encouraging students to verbalize their thinking of strategies was always effective. The consistently positive effects suggest that verbalizing steps in a problem solving may be addressing the impulsivity of that many students with learning disabilities have . ( Gersten et al., 2009). One way to implement student verbalization, the third rated intervention, in my classroom is by using call and response and allowing students to respond to prompts by stating the steps in assignments. . The last instructional component, providing on going feedback can be shown by teachers being given specific information on how each student is performing. In my classroom I receive ongoing feedback from the reading and math programs on students technology and I can view results and progress daily. As a special education teacher I use the detailed information on each student to construct small groups.
6
Meta- Analysis on Math Interventions
References
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
(3), 1202–1242. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40469093
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help