Student Intervention Project

*all names and identifiers have been given pseudonyms (with the exception of the
profile writer)

Student Name: Carlos Brown Teachers: Ms. One (Gen. Ed. Teacher),
School: Learning Elementary School Ms. Two (Special Ed. Teacher)
Date of Birth: 1/25/2005 Grade: 5
District: ABC Public School District Interventionist: Carly Weinand

Student Need
Carlos is a 5th grade student at Learning Elementary School in the ABC Public

School system. He is sweet and hard-working but often becomes discouraged when

unsuccessful in academic attempts. When evaluated in 2017, test administrators found a

several discrepancies between Carlos’s ability and achievement. His primary disability is

an expressive language disorder which effects his organization and his retention. He

does not always make connections or notice relationships between concepts or ideas and

responds best to direct statements. While he is able to follow the logical processes of

mathematical concepts, Carlos often struggles with deciding how and where to begin

when given a problem. He often needs to be redirected from side conversations and

encouraged to complete his assigned work. Carlos seems to lack the confidence needed

to self-start in his school work. He will often seek me out to work in small groups. He

and I have developed a strong student-teacher relationship through my time in this

classroom.

The math goal in Carlo’s IEP is as follows: After direct instruction, Carlos will

demonstrate an understanding of multi-digit division, varying word problems and the

ability to explain different mathematical processes in order to access the grade-level

curriculum. Because this is quite general, my focus with this student was the benchmark

“Carlos will, with minimal cueing, use partial quotients or standard algorithm to divide

numbers with 3-4 digits and having 1-2 digit divisor (with or without remainders)”.
With this in mind as well as the profile of the student, the decision was made to provide

Carlos with a targeted intervention to address his division proficiency. The intervention

approached the research question: will one-on-one explicit instruction on division

strategies increase Carlo’s accuracy when solving 3 digit by 1-2 digit division problems?

Intervention Goal
Carlos will increase his accuracy on 3 digit by 1-2 digit division problems from

70% to 87% by the end of the 3 week intervention period by through Do the Math

lessons semiweekly and measured by 3 problem division worksheets.

Progress Monitoring
To monitor Carlo’s progress throughout the intervention, I created a way to

collect data on his accuracy in solving the targeted types of problems using a

curriculum-based assessment. First, I created a set of “check-ins” that each contained 3

division problems, some with and some without remainders. On each check in, there

was one problem requiring division of a 3-digit number by a 1-digit number, one

problem addressing a 3-digit number being divided by a multiple of 10 and a division

problem with a 3 digit dividend and a divisor of either 12 or 25. Using a random number

generator, I compiled several check-ins to be administered as baselines and assessment

through the intervention. The results of the two baselines are shown in the chart below
10.5
and resulted in the mean score of .
15

Date Score

11
4/2/19
15

10
4/3/19
15
 Rather than score the worksheets out of 3, I broke each problem down into five

parts and created a rubric (appendix A). Each problem would be given a point for

accurately calculating multiples of the divisor, using subtraction without error,

accurately adding multiples to find quotients, recording accurate remainders in final

answers and recording accurate solutions to the equation. If, in the case of remainders

and addition, the criteria was not applicable, the student was awarded the point. This

meant each check-in was worth 15 points.

To keep track of the dates and scores, I organized my data using a form published

by interventioncentral.org which is specifically made for the purpose of progress

monitoring (appendix B). I also kept a chart that contained the breakdown of the scores

for each check-in (appendix C).

Intervention
Description of Intervention & Links to Evidence-Based Research
The intervention I chose to use for this student is called Do the Math and was

created by Marilyn Burns. Specifically, I used Division C: Dividends to 1,000. This

curriculum has students decompose large dividends into familiar numbers to help make

sense of complex division problems. Each lesson focuses on a specific dividend (10,

multiples of 10, 12 and 25). Several lessons also introduced the process in the form of a

game using dice to create a 3-digit dividend and using remainders to reach 25 or 100.

In addition to this curriculum being accessible at my school, it also fits the needs

of my student. The lessons are laid out in explicit design, using the I do, we do, you do

method. This is helpful as Carlos responds well to direct instruction. This is also

beneficial because it addresses the student’s reluctance to self-start. the I do, we do, you

do method is a way of gradually increasing the student’s responsibility. The

decomposing of larger numbers will assist with the student’s organizational needs and

may also help the student make connections and see patterns in specific types of

multiplication problems.

This intervention is also based on proven instructional strategies and has

evidence to support its efficacy. One of the strategies used in the curriculum is Explicit

instruction. In General, explicit lesson designs are backed with evidence that supports

their effectiveness. In fact, “a structured, explicit, and scaffolded approach to instruction

has a positive impact on student academic achievement” (Archer & Hughes, p. 14, 2011).

There are several studies, too, that investigated whether or not Do the Math correlated

with student success. One study done on the multiplication section of the curriculum

found that “diverse populations of students, including students with special needs,

English language learners, and general elementary school students who have been

identified as low performing, made gains in their understanding of and skill at

performing multiplication” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p.1, 2008) showing that the

benefits of the curriculum are wide-reaching. Similarly, a evaluation done by Hanover

Research found that the curriculum raised student achievement (Hanover Research,

2014).

Implementation
The Do the Math lessons were implemented semi-weekly during our class’s half

hour of Math “What I Need” of “WIN” time. Ideally, this would have been a daily

intervention but the student also participates in a reading group 3 times a week. The

intervention period was 3 weeks long and sessions usually lasted 20 minutes with extra

time for the student to complete an assessment. I kept track of our sessions using a

calendar (appendix D) and I followed the script in the teacher guide with moderate
fidelity, making adjustments occasionally. If the student was demonstrating mastery but

there were still practice problems in the lesson, I might skip forward to avoid

frustration.

During our sessions, Carlos was generally engaged without excessive redirection.

During the first few lessons, I was worried the intervention was going to be too easy for

him as he kept rushing me and interrupting me, seeming very impatient. As the

intervention went on, he warmed to it but remained somewhat distracted.

Results
As is illustrated in the following chart, Carlos noticeably progressed through the

course of the intervention. From his base line of 10.5, his mean score at the end of the
13
intervention was 13.5. The student met their performance goal of , suggesting a
15

successful intervention. While it’s difficult to generalize with such a small amount of

data, there is a trend of consistent growth. This growth was noticeable through his

performance during our sessions, where he seemed to master the procedure of solving

division problems.
 Rewritten IEP Goals

Goal
When given a set of 4-digit division problems, Carlos will increase his accuracy

from 65% to at least 80% by the end of this IEP period through the use of explicit

instruction, multiplication review, and small group instruction, as measured by

curriculum-based progress monitoring and student work.

Benchmarks
1. Carlos will increase his accuracy when dividing 4-digit numbers by 1-2 digit

numbers from 65% to 70% by November 2019.

 2. Carlos will increase his accuracy when dividing 4-digit numbers by 1-2 digit

numbers from 70% to 75% by February 2020.

3. Carlos will increase his accuracy when dividing 4-digit numbers by 1-2 digit

numbers from 75% to 80% by May 2020.

Summary
In summation, the data collected through the intervention period suggests a

positive impact on the accuracy of Carlo’s division of 3-digit numbers. His accuracy

increased from 70% to 90%. While this is an impressive growth for a short intervention,

it should be noted that baseline data only included 2 points while his final percentage

was compiled from 6 data points. I feel that if this intervention were to continue, Carlos

would continue to improve before flatlining or plateauing.

I found several aspects of this curriculum to be useful and beneficial. The designs

of the lessons was straightforward and explicit, which I believe contributed to both my

success and my student’s success. The intervention was very organized and provided

ample opportunities for the student to practice with teacher guidance. The script used

concise and clear language which I found useful. On the other hand, some parts of the

curriculum were lacking or flawed. While the teacher guide provided a vocabulary list

for each lesson, they did not provide any suggestions or opportunities to discuss and use

these words. I feel that this is a missed opportunity to explore mathematical language.

The lessons also don’t provide much variation. If this were being taught to a larger

group, I’d worry about providing multiple means of accessing the material.

If I were to use this intervention again, and I believe I would, I might make some

slight adjustments. I’d definitely try to have a larger group to provide students with
more opportunities to discuss mathematical concepts. I might also let the student lead

the discussion more and emphasize the importance of being able to explain the process.

Reflection
I believe the process of choosing an intervention, developing a progress

monitoring tool, implementing the intervention and analyzing the data has been an

invaluable experience. I enjoyed the organizational aspects of this as well as the

statistical thinking. Being able to see the student’s growth in chart form was rewarding.

It makes such a difference to be able to see the change in the student’s data and I think

this is true whether my intervention was successful or not.

It’s important for teachers to base their practice on evidence and I think this

process has demonstrated that. In my future career, if I approached a coworker with a

specific concern for a student, I now know how much clearer my point would be if I

came prepared with baseline data established. In conclusion, I will come away from this

process with a stronger understanding of the importance of addressing student needs

with specific targeted interventions.

 References

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient
teaching. New York: Guilford Press.

Hanover Research. (2014). Best Practices in Math Interventions.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2008). Do The Math® : Math Intervention in New York
City Schools. Retrieved from https://www.hmhco.com/products/do-the-
math/pdfs/DTM-Impact-Study.pdf.
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D: