Comparing mathematics interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness?

By Robin S. Codding, M. Shiyko, Maria Russo, S. Birch, Erica Fanning, Deborah Jaspen. 2007

84 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.

Adding Immediate Feedback to Explicit Timing: An Option for Enhancing Treatment Intensity to Improve Mathematics Fluency (2015, methodology): “One commonly examined technique to improve math fluency is ET (Codding et al. 2007; Rhymer et al. 1998, 1999; Rhymer and Morgan 2005; Van Houten and Thompson 1976).”
A Comparison of Taped Problems With and Without a Brief Post-Treatment Assessment on Multiplication Fluency (2010, background): “These high baseline DCM scores suggest that ceiling effects may have hindered our ability to detect differences across treatments and may account for the increasing trends during baseline relative to treatment phases ( Codding et al. 2007; Rhymer et al. 2002).”
Meta–Analysis of Mathematic Basic–Fact Fluency Interventions: A Component Analysis (2011, background): “…who found that adding demonstration to standard drill and practice procedures resulted in better outcomes for students with learning disabilities, and with research suggesting that students with low ﬂuency beneﬁted more from a treatment including modeling than one without (Codding et al., 2007).”
Extending Research on a Math Fluency Building Intervention: Applying Taped Problems in a Second-Grade Classroom (2009, background): “Previous researchers have found that after students have attained high levels of accuracy, repeated timed assessments may be sufficient to enhance fluency (eg, Codding et al, 2007 ; Rhymer et al, 2002 ).”