Effects of Formative Assessment Strategies on the Fractions Computation Skills of Students with Disabilities

Autor/inn/en	Bottge, Brian A.; Ma, Xin; Gassaway, Linda J.; Jones, Megan; Gravil, Meg
Titel	Effects of Formative Assessment Strategies on the Fractions Computation Skills of Students with Disabilities
Quelle	In: Remedial and Special Education, 42 (2021) 5, S.279-289 (11 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext (1); PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei (2) Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Bottge, Brian A.) Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0741-9325
DOI	10.1177/0741932520942954
Schlagwörter	Formative Evaluation; Fractions; Computation; Students with Disabilities; Mathematics Skills; Teaching Methods; Educational Technology; Technology Uses in Education; Student Evaluation; Prompting; Program Effectiveness; Special Education; Secondary School Students; Error Correction; Manipulative Materials; Visual Stimuli; Faculty Development; Time Factors (Learning) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Bruchrechnung; Student; Students; Disability; Disabilities; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin; Behinderung; Mathmatics achievement; Mathematics ability; Mathematische Kompetenz; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Unterrichtsmedien; Technology enhanced learning; Technology aided learning; Technologieunterstütztes Lernen; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Benutzerführung; Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen; Sekundarschüler; Korrektur; Hilfsmittel
Abstract	Learning to compute with fractions is a major challenge for many students and especially for students with disabilities (SWD). Phase 1 of this study employed a randomized pretest-posttest comparison design to test the effects of two versions of formative assessment combined with an instructional program called Fractions at Work. In one condition, teachers used technology-assisted prompts to assess student performance and remediate errors. In the comparison condition, teachers gave students the same items for assessing progress but used their own methods of reteaching. Results indicated no difference between the two methods. However, pretest-to-posttest gain scores were significantly higher on all three measures regardless of type of formative assessment, and students maintained much of what they had learned. Phase 2 examined issues related to instructional dosage. Students who received additional weeks of instruction scored significantly higher than students who went back to their business-as-usual curriculum. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED608844.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01