Assessing the Instructional Level for Mathematics: A Comparison of Methods

98 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Impact of Cover, Copy, and Compare on fluency outcomes for students with disabilities and math deficits: A review of the literature (2017, background): “Conversely, a mismatch can lead to student boredom, frustration, and low performance outcomes (Burns et al., 2006; Daly et al., 1996; Gravois & Gickling, 2002).”
Meta–Analysis of Mathematic Basic–Fact Fluency Interventions: A Component Analysis (2011, background): “Although students in ﬁfth and sixth grade generated performance levels that fell within the low end of the instructional range (Burns et al., 2006), basic fact ﬂuency is expected to be mastered by the end of fourth grade indicating that these students were experiencing signiﬁcant skill deﬁcits…”
Meta-Analysis of Acquisition and Fluency Math Interventions With Instructional and Frustration Level Skills: Evidence for a Skill-by-Treatment Interaction (2010, background): “Second, studies that included sixth-grade students were retained even though the criteria used to determine frustration and instructional levels (Burns et al., 2006) was established using students in Grades 2–5.”
Performance Indicators in Math: Implications for Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic Performance (2009, background): “Baroody (1985) proposed that mathematics competence emerges through an experiential learning process whereby students construct or discriminate rules that are committed to memory and applied under the ‘‘right’’ conditions.”