Addition Math Facts and Worksheets - PowerPoint by zbu58798

VIEWS: 117 PAGES: 28

More Info
									Effectiveness of Touch Math for Teaching
    Addition to Kindergarten Students

        California State University, Long Beach
                  Vanessa Velasco, M.A.
               Kristin Powers, Ph.D., NCSP
 Bradly Snyder
 Bridgette Molina
 Gerianne Alaghehband
 Lydia Velasco
 Norma Salazar
 Tamara Cornette
 Lindsay Tartre, Ph. D.
 Shuhua An, Ph.D.
 The Kindergarten class who participated
 The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000)
  claims that fluency, accuracy, and automaticity with math
  facts are precursors to learning more advanced math.
 Current teaching practices include: drill and practice
  techniques, memorization, manipulatives, and worksheets
 Teachers incorporate supplemental material into lesson plans
  to reach a diverse group of students
What is Touch Math?
 A multi-sensory, supplemental curriculum that
  attempts to bridge the gap between manipulation
  and memorization of math facts (Bullock, 2000;
  Grattino, 2004)
 Follows the sequential learning strategies
  endorsed by Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky in their
  developmental theories
 Students point to, touch, and count dots
  representing the quantity of a number
Statement of the Problem
 Presently there is limited research on the
  effectiveness of Touch Math and none on general
  education setting with kindergarten students
 There is even less information available from
  studies that included treatment and comparison
  groups through an experimental design
Purpose of the Study
  Is Touch Math an effective supplemental math
  program for teaching addition to kindergarten

  Kindergarten students in the Touch Math group
  will demonstrate larger gains on the math-post test
  than students in the comparison and control
Why is This Study Important
 There is little research available
 The effects of teaching Touch Math to
  kindergarten students is unknown
 Very few comparison studies have been
  conducted, and none have employed
  experimental designs
What Does the Literature Say?
 A growing awareness in early childhood
  mathematics has expanded the knowledge base
  about learning, teaching, and research-based
  curriculum and instruction (NAEYC & NCTM,
 High-quality, challenging, and accessible
  mathematics education for 3-6 year old children
  is a vital foundation for future mathematics
Literature continued
 The developmental theorists suggest that children
  transition from the concrete to the pictorial
  stages of development and end at the symbolic
  stage, which is a later stage where memorization
  and higher levels of cognition are developed.
 The emphasis on evidence-based interventions in
  No Child Left Behind and Individuals with
  Disabilities Improvement Acts warrants a more
  careful analysis of the effects of Touch Math on
  student outcomes.
Literature continued
 Supplemental instruction is part of a larger
  concept known as Response to Intervention
  (RTI), which is a proactive approach to providing
  students with specialized instruction prior to
  failing in an academic area (Murawski & Hughes,
 Touch Math is a supplemental program that could
  be used at all levels of instruction
Quasi-Experimental Studies
 A study conducted by Dev, Doyle, and Valente
 (n.d.) included eleven participants who were
 referred by their teachers for evaluation during
 their kindergarten year.
  Taught TM in 1st grade and reviewed as
   necessary in 2nd grade.
  Pre- post-test results indicated that 75% of
   students scored higher than grade level in math
Quasi-Experimental Studies
 Dulgarian (n.d.) employed a quasi-experimental group
  design with twenty 4th and 5th grade students in special
  education at a Title I school for 45 minutes, 3 days a
  week, for 10 weeks
   Group I instructed in TM
   Group II instructed in Math Steps
     TM group scored 68% correct on pre-test and 82%
      correct on post-test
     Math Steps group scored 71% correct and 78%
      correct on the pre- and post-tests, respectively
Single Subject Studies
 A study by Wisniewski and Smith (2002):
   4 students in 3rd and 4th grade special education
   Received instruction in mathematics for 45 minutes daily (20
    minutes were dedicated to TM) for 14 weeks.
     Student 1: Pre-test 85% in 5 minutes. Post-test 100% in 5
     Student 2: Pre-test 98% in10 minutes. Post-test 95% in 4
     Student 3: Pre-test 100% in7 minutes. Post-test 100% in 4
     Student 4: Pre-test 23% in 8 minutes . Post-test 93% in 4
Single Subject Studies
 A very brief Touch Math intervention was
 conducted by Rudolph (2008) with her third
 grade students at a suburban school in North
  After one week of instruction for 30 minutes
   daily, all students (N = 17) except for one
   improved in the number of problems
   completed correctly.
Satisfaction Surveys
 The developers of Touch Math, Innovative Learning
  Concepts, Inc., conducted a survey (Grattino, 2004) to
  understand how educators use Touch Math, how it has
  helped them in their classrooms, and to gain a better
  understanding of the impact Touch Math has had on
  teachers and students.

   Approximately 99.8% of respondents indicated that
    Touch Math was an effective supplemental math
 26 Kindergarteners from a low-income parochial school in
  Santa Ana, CA.
 58% female, 42% male
 54% 5 years old, 42% 6 years old
 92% Hispanic
 27% English Language Learner
 69% Bilingual

 Chi square analyses found no significant difference
  between the four groups in terms of gender, race, disability
  status or bilingual language skills.
 Instruments Used (Pre-Post Test Measures)

   DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)
    probe (Good & Kaminski, 2001)
   Curriculum Based Measure-Addition (CBM-A)
    worksheet (20 single digit addition problems
    using numbers 0 – 6)
Assessment Integrity Checks
 PSF Assessment Integrity: 42% of the PSF
  administrations were observed and 97% of behaviors on
  the PSF integrity worksheet were observed. The most
  common mistake was that directions were not read
 Math Assessment Integrity: 20% of the worksheets were
  scored twice, the inter-rater agreement was 100%.
Intervention Integrity Checks
  20% of the intervention sessions were observed.
  The interventionists were observed leading each of the 3
  A 10 item intervention plan implementation checklist was
  Touch Math: 98% accurate
  Phonemic Awareness Math group: 98% accurate
  California Math group: 85% accurate (one interventionist
   replaced after first week)
  Most common mistake was not consistently providing
   positive reinforcement.
 Procedure
   Students randomly assigned to 4 groups
   Three interventionists rotated to a new group
    every two weeks (all volunteers)
   Pre-tests administered to all students (counter-
   45 minutes of daily instruction for a total 18 days.
   Post-tests administered to all students
   Extended math post-test administered to all
    students six weeks later (math Time 2).

 The data from the pre- and post-test were
  analyzed by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
  with the pre-test serving as the covariate.
 Follow-up pairwise t-tests were conducted on
  significant ANCOVA results.
 Math Post-Test 1: The means were not statistically different.
  F (3, 22) = 2.94, p = .33
      CA Math: 17.00
      TM: 13.17
      PA: 6.20
      Control: 8.43
 PSF Post-Test: The means were statistically different.
  F (3, 25) = 15.60, p < .001; Pairwise post test indicate PA group
  performed significantly better than the other groups.
      CA Math: 17.17
      TM:8.50
      PA: 39.50**
      Control: 9.00
 Math Extended Post-Test 3: Most means were statistically
  different. F (3, 25) = 9.68, p < .05
      CA Math: 19.79*
      TM: 20.00*
      PA: 10.58
      Control: 8.96

 Pairwise follow-up comparisons found both math groups to
  significantly outperform PA (p<.05) and Control (p<.01) groups.
           Effect Sizes (Cohen’s d)

                     Post PSF   MathTime 1   Math Time 2

TM v. CA Math        -.532      -.435        .045

TM v. PA             -3.56      .699         1.74
TM v. Control        -.057      .667         1.78

CA Math v. PA        -1.47      1.57         1.51

CA Math v. Control   .535       1.65         1.60

PA v. Control        4.68       -.108        .220
 Both math programs improved students’ mastery of single
  digit addition 6 weeks after the intervention. Neither was
  more effective than the other.
   It is important to compare similar academic interventions
 Small group instruction in phonemic awareness produced the
  largest effects.
   May be a result of stronger connection between curriculum and
 Limitations:
   Small sample size
   Study took place in a parochial school, results
    may not generalize to public school settings
   Student Behavior
   Training and experience of volunteer
   Length and duration of interventions
   Teacher advised students to use their fingers on
    1st post-test
 Implications:
   Although students learn new techniques they
    may require further instruction on when to use
    the newly acquired skills (generalization)
   Touch Math is a systematic, sequenced, and
    structured program that shows promise for
    teaching a diverse group of students how to

To top