Study 1: 44 Students Using TEMI-A

In order to improve my instructional practices, I analyzed instructional data from district math diagnostic and proficiency assessments. The most recent assessment assessed student’s abilities to count, add and subtract, and their understanding of place value. My students scored below not only the other first grade students at the school, but also all first grade students in the district. 81.6% of my students could count, read, and write numbers to 120. This was an improvement from their diagnostic assessment. However, only 66.7% could relate counting to addition and subtraction, and only 45% demonstrated understanding of place value in two digit numbers.

When the validity and reliability of this tool is replicated and verified thru further wide scale studies, then this scale can be used as an evaluation tool for the effectiveness of an intervention that aims on improving routine health behaviors.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a response prompt assessment designed to determine, for each participant, which of a variety of prompt and prompt fading procedures were most efficient in teaching new responses.

Jazmine Ruiz is a perfect candidate for my formative assessment because she missed a week of lessons on how to add two digit numbers. This gave me the opportunity to tutor Jasmine on adding two digit addition. Each tutoring session was approximately twenty-five minutes long. Throughout my tutoring sessions, Jazmine will learn four different strategies on how to add two digit numbers. The first strategy, Jazmine will learn how to add two digit numbers by drawing tens and ones. Second, she will learn how to break apart the

Participants attended sessions six (6) times per week for six (6) consecutive months. Each session consisted of 15 minutes devoted to a test session and 60 minutes of a practice session. The hour session was divided in two 30 minutes. Study group # 1 received 30

Six videos in all were uses at approximately 8 to 10 seconds in duration. A multiple probe design across participants was used. Each participant was assigned three stimulus categories and a fourth was used to assess across category generalization. The procedure for both baseline and treatment consisted of 18 trials per session and for additional trials that were used for generalization probes which consisted of an exemplar from the fourth stimulus category. The 18 trials for treatment were broken down in to 9 teaching trials and 3 exemplar trials from each of the three training categories. A flow chart for the steps of the procedure can be found on page 286 of the (Kerth et al., 2011) study.

Three studies tested an educational intervention and two studies used an experimental design. 50% of the studies did not report timing of the research in relation to the decision regarding clinical trial participation (Biedrzycki, 2010).

During the monitoring period treatments and outcomes should be measured to determine the effectiveness and adherence of protocols.

The first step in the analysis was to categorize each patient by whether or not they passed the clinical threshold during their treatment and if their change was reliable. Clinical cutoff scores and Reliable Change Indexes (RCI) for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were obtained from past research [@Delgadillo2012; @Griffiths2015; @Kroenke2001; @Spitzer2006]. Clinical cutoff scores for the BASE-6 were obtained from unpublished pilot research and corresponded to the clinical cutoff of the commonly used OQ-45 measure.

Neely, L., Rispoli, M., Camargo, S., Davis, H., & Boles, M. (2013). The effect of instructional

The interventionist uses curriculum based multiplication problems and divides these problems into known multiplication problems and unknown multiplication problems based on whether the student responds correctly.

The lesson also begins with the teacher providing potential tasks for the students, but the student’s response guides the teacher’s questions and direction of teaching, as well as the task being presented to the student. These sessions are supposed to be intensive in order for the students to make progress in their learning. The teachers trained in this program take two graduate-level courses, which are designed to educate them about the math recovery program and instructional techniques and strategies. The sessions with the students are also videotaped so that it can be ensured that these teachers are integrating both assessment and teaching. Another great thing about the program is that there is teaching support that is available for math recovery teachers if they feel like they need

Results: There was a significant mean difference in the following: (a) UPA at time point 1 minus SBP at time point 3 [−3.8 mmHg, 95% CI -5.5 mmHg and -2.1 mmHg; P < .01]; and (b) UPA baseline SBP (time points 1 & 2) minus SBP during intervention (time points 3 & 4) [−2.7mmHg, 95% CI -4.7 mmHg and -0.7 mmHg, P < .05]. All p-values were Bonferroni-corrected. Some SBP drop, exhibited by the lower bound of the 95% CI, exceeded the MDC. There were no other noteworthy differences for the between-group and within-group comparisons.

The lack of adopted curriculum also means that most, if not all, teachers are supplementing both materials and instructional routines. These students need to pass the state-mandated Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) which requires completion of a problem-solving performance task. Students need to know which operation(s) to use (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division) and how to apply them appropriately. This problem has

Baseline assessment was conducted between November 3, 2003, and August 27, 2004. Three annual follow-up waves were implemented in 2007, 2008 and 2009