The purpose of this meta-analysis was to synthesize findings from 42 interventions (randomized control trials and quasi-experimental studies) on instructional approaches that enhance the mathematics proficiency of students with learning disabilities. We examined the impact of four categories of instructional components: (a) approaches to instruction and/or curriculum design, (b) formative assessment data and feedback to teachers on students' mathematics performance, (c) formative data and feedback to students with LD on their performance, and (d) peer-assisted mathematics instruction. All instructional components except for student feedback with goal-setting and peer-assisted learning within a class resulted in significant mean effects ranging from 0.21 to 1.56. We also examined the effectiveness of these components conditionally, using hierarchical multiple regressions. Two instructional components provided practically and statistically important increases in effect size–teaching students to use heuristics and explicit instruction. Limitations of the study, suggestions for future research, and applications for improvement of current practice are discussed.

No abstract

Randomized field trials were used to examine the impact of the Teacher Study Group (TSG), a professional development model, on first grade teachers' reading comprehension and vocabulary instruction, their knowledge of these areas, and on the comprehension and vocabulary achievement of their students. The multi-site study was conducted in three large urban school districts from three states. A total of 81 first grade teachers and their 468 students from 19 Reading First schools formed the analytic sample in the study. Classrooms observations of teaching practice showed significant improvements in TSG schools. TSG teachers also significantly outperformed control teachers on the teacher knowledge measure of vocabulary instruction. Confirmatory analysis of student outcomes indicated marginally significant effects in oral vocabulary. Impact of the Teacher Study Group 3 Teacher Study Group: Impact of the Professional Development Model on Reading Instruction and Student Outcomes in First Grade ClassroomsOver the past thirty years, a body of research on promising practices for effective professional development (PD) has slowly emerged (e.g., Berman & McLaughlin, 1978;Huberman & Miles, 1984;Ball, 1990;Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).Although this body of research has had a profound impact on the field, a good deal of uncertainty remains. Advocated PD practices, though sensible and compelling, have rarely been widely field-tested and evaluated using rigorous research techniques (Guskey, 2003;Desimone, 2009).The majority of the studies in PD encompass a broad array of methodologies (surveys, comparative case studies, qualitative, mixed methods) that rely heavily on teacher self-report and case study analysis. We possess very little empirical evidence on the critical role these promising practices play in enhancing teacher learning of effective instructional strategies, and more importantly student learning (Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008). Rarely do studies link PD to student outcomes, and the few that have attempted to do so have often yielded disappointing results. In fact, Garet et al. (2008) found that large-scale PD that included many of these practices did lead to significant increases in teachers' knowledge and observed teaching practice, but failed to enhance student reading achievement significantly.To address this need for effective PD, we developed a PD program, the Teacher Study Group, and tested its effects on teacher and student outcomes using randomized control trials. In this article we delineate the features and format of the PD program, and describe the multi-site randomized control trials study. Impact of the Teacher Study Group 4 Teacher Study GroupThe Teacher Study Group (TSG) PD program used in this study was based on our earlier research efforts to identify strengths and weaknesses of PD strategies for translating research into teaching practice in high poverty schools (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995;Gersten & Brengelman, 1996;Gersten, Darch, Davis, & George, 199...