Yesterday, I attended the Regional Educational Lab Mid-Atlantic’s workshop on applying research knowledge to educational practices in mathematics in the context of response to intervention (RTI) efforts in elementary and middle schools. The training focused on the elements of the US Dept of Education’s practice guide for mathematics intervention efforts (NCEE 2009-4060). Among the recommendations highlighted to have strong evidence of empirical support is #3 “Instruction during the intervention should be explicit and systematic. This includes providing models of proficient problem solving, verbalization of thought processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review”.
Dr. Russell Gersten, professor emeritus at University of Oregon and an expert on effective math instructional practices, was one of the presenters at the workshop. When asked what he would recommend if a district was utilizing a constructivist approach that avoided explicit and systematic instruction and instead relied upon students’ self-discovery of their own methods for answering questions, he laughed, seemed to do a double take, and nearly answered “Pshwft!”…. before awkwardly handing it over to a woman from PDE who indicated that yes, some districts in Pennsylvania might be using that approach in Tier I core instruction. Clearly, he didn’t think it had ANY place in Tier II or III interventions for kids having difficulty in math (or much of one in Tier I core instruction either, I assume), as he made a point of highlighting the IES randomized study of grade 1 students that showed that using a totally discovery-focused approach is NOT effective. Yes, indeed – this must be our very own Investigations curriculum that scored poorly in that IES study (NCEE 2009-4053: Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula).
Overall, this was a good workshop. Additional highlights and other aspects of the IES Practice Guide will follow in subsequent posts.
