California State University, Long Beach

Vanessa Velasco, M.A.

Kristin Powers, Ph.D., NCSP

Effectiveness of Touch Math for Teaching Addition to Kindergarten

Students

AcknowledgmentsBradly SnyderBridgette MolinaGerianne AlaghehbandLydia VelascoNorma SalazarTamara CornetteLindsay Tartre, Ph. D.Shuhua An, Ph.D.The Kindergarten class who

participated

IntroductionThe National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (2000) claims that fluency, accuracy, and automaticity with math facts are precursors to learning more advanced math.

Current teaching practices include: drill and practice techniques, memorization, manipulatives, and worksheets

Teachers incorporate supplemental material into lesson plans to reach a diverse group of students

What is Touch Math?A multi-sensory, supplemental curriculum

that attempts to bridge the gap between manipulation and memorization of math facts (Bullock, 2000; Grattino, 2004)

Follows the sequential learning strategies endorsed by Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky in their developmental theories

Students point to, touch, and count dots representing the quantity of a number

Statement of the ProblemPresently there is limited research

on the effectiveness of Touch Math and none on general education setting with kindergarten students

There is even less information available from studies that included treatment and comparison groups through an experimental design

Purpose of the StudyQuestion:

Is Touch Math an effective supplemental math program for teaching addition to kindergarten students?

Hypothesis:Kindergarten students in the Touch Math group will demonstrate larger gains on the math-post test than students in the comparison and control groups.

Why is This Study ImportantThere is little research available The effects of teaching Touch Math

to kindergarten students is unknown

Very few comparison studies have been conducted, and none have employed experimental designs

What Does the Literature Say?A growing awareness in early childhood

mathematics has expanded the knowledge base about learning, teaching, and research-based curriculum and instruction (NAEYC & NCTM, 2000).

High-quality, challenging, and accessible mathematics education for 3-6 year old children is a vital foundation for future mathematics learning

Literature continuedThe developmental theorists suggest that

children transition from the concrete to the pictorial stages of development and end at the symbolic stage, which is a later stage where memorization and higher levels of cognition are developed.

The emphasis on evidence-based interventions in No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Acts warrants a more careful analysis of the effects of Touch Math on student outcomes.

Literature continuedSupplemental instruction is part of a

larger concept known as Response to Intervention (RTI), which is a proactive approach to providing students with specialized instruction prior to failing in an academic area (Murawski & Hughes, 2009)

Touch Math is a supplemental program that could be used at all levels of instruction

Quasi-Experimental StudiesA study conducted by Dev, Doyle, and

Valente (n.d.) included eleven participants who were referred by their teachers for evaluation during their kindergarten year.Taught TM in 1st grade and reviewed as necessary in 2nd grade.

Pre- post-test results indicated that 75% of students scored higher than grade level in math

Quasi-Experimental StudiesDulgarian (n.d.) employed a quasi-

experimental group design with twenty 4th and 5th grade students in special education at a Title I school for 45 minutes, 3 days a week, for 10 weeksGroup I instructed in TMGroup II instructed in Math Steps

TM group scored 68% correct on pre-test and 82% correct on post-test

Math Steps group scored 71% correct and 78% correct on the pre- and post-tests, respectively

Single Subject StudiesA study by Wisniewski and Smith (2002):

4 students in 3rd and 4th grade special educationReceived instruction in mathematics for 45

minutes daily (20 minutes were dedicated to TM) for 14 weeks.Student 1: Pre-test 85% in 5 minutes. Post-test

100% in 5 minutesStudent 2: Pre-test 98% in10 minutes. Post-test

95% in 4 minutesStudent 3: Pre-test 100% in7 minutes. Post-test

100% in 4 minutesStudent 4: Pre-test 23% in 8 minutes . Post-test

93% in 4 minutes

Single Subject StudiesA very brief Touch Math intervention

was conducted by Rudolph (2008) with her third grade students at a suburban school in North CarolinaAfter one week of instruction for 30 minutes daily, all students (N = 17) except for one improved in the number of problems completed correctly.

Satisfaction SurveysThe developers of Touch Math, Innovative

Learning Concepts, Inc., conducted a survey (Grattino, 2004) to understand how educators use Touch Math, how it has helped them in their classrooms, and to gain a better understanding of the impact Touch Math has had on teachers and students.

Approximately 99.8% of respondents indicated that Touch Math was an effective supplemental math program.

MethodologySubjects26 Kindergarteners from a low-income

parochial school in Santa Ana, CA.58% female, 42% male54% 5 years old, 42% 6 years old92% Hispanic27% English Language Learner69% Bilingual

Chi square analyses found no significant difference between the four groups in terms of gender, race, disability status or bilingual language skills.

MethodologyInstruments Used (Pre-Post Test

Measures)

DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) probe (Good & Kaminski, 2001)

Curriculum Based Measure-Addition (CBM-A) worksheet (20 single digit addition problems using numbers 0 – 6)

Assessment Integrity ChecksPSF Assessment Integrity: 42% of the

PSF administrations were observed and 97% of behaviors on the PSF integrity worksheet were observed. The most common mistake was that directions were not read verbatim.

Math Assessment Integrity: 20% of the worksheets were scored twice, the inter-rater agreement was 100%.

Intervention Integrity Checks20% of the intervention sessions were

observed.The interventionists were observed leading

each of the 3 groups.A 10 item intervention plan implementation

checklist was developed.Touch Math: 98% accurate Phonemic Awareness Math group: 98%

accurateCalifornia Math group: 85% accurate (one

interventionist replaced after first week)Most common mistake was not consistently

providing positive reinforcement.

MethodologyProcedure

Students randomly assigned to 4 groupsThree interventionists rotated to a new group every two weeks (all volunteers)

Pre-tests administered to all students (counter-balanced)

45 minutes of daily instruction for a total 18 days.

Post-tests administered to all studentsExtended math post-test administered to all students six weeks later (math Time 2).

Results

The data from the pre- and post-test were analyzed by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the pre-test serving as the covariate.

Follow-up pairwise t-tests were conducted on significant ANCOVA results.

ResultsMath Post-Test 1: The means were not statistically

different. F (3, 22) = 2.94, p = .33

CA Math: 17.00TM: 13.17PA: 6.20Control: 8.43

PSF Post-Test: The means were statistically different. F (3, 25) = 15.60, p < .001; Pairwise post test indicate PA group performed significantly better than the other groups.

CA Math: 17.17TM:8.50PA: 39.50**Control: 9.00

ResultsMath Extended Post-Test 3: Most means were

statistically different. F (3, 25) = 9.68, p < .05 CA Math: 19.79*TM: 20.00*PA: 10.58Control: 8.96

Pairwise follow-up comparisons found both math groups to significantly outperform PA (p<.05) and Control (p<.01) groups.

Effect Sizes (Cohen’s d)

Post PSF Math Time 1 Math Time 2

TM v. CA Math -.532 -.435 .045

TM v. PA -3.56 .699 1.74

TM v. Control -.057 .667 1.78

CA Math v. PA -1.47 1.57 1.51

CA Math v. Control

.535 1.65 1.60

PA v. Control 4.68 -.108 .220

ConclusionBoth math programs improved students’

mastery of single digit addition 6 weeks after the intervention. Neither was more effective than the other.It is important to compare similar academic

interventionsSmall group instruction in phonemic

awareness produced the largest effects.May be a result of stronger connection

between curriculum and assessment.

ConclusionLimitations:

Small sample size Study took place in a parochial school, results may not generalize to public school settings

Student Behavior Training and experience of volunteer interventionists

Length and duration of interventionsTeacher advised students to use their fingers on 1st post-test

ConclusionImplications:

Although students learn new techniques they may require further instruction on when to use the newly acquired skills (generalization)

Touch Math is a systematic, sequenced, and structured program that shows promise for teaching a diverse group of students how to add.