ROOTS (Whole Number Foundations Level K)
Study: Clarke et al. (2011)

Summary

ROOTS is a 50-lesson kindergarten intervention program designed to develop procedural fluency with and conceptual understanding of whole number concepts. ROOTS is delivered by instructional assistants to small groups consisting of 4-5 students, 4 to 5 times per week, for 10-12 weeks during the second half of the school year. Each ROOTS lesson is approximately 20 minutes in duration and includes 4 to 5 brief math activities that center on whole number concepts and skills. ROOTS provides in-depth instruction in whole number concepts by linking the informal mathematics developed prior to kindergarten to the formal mathematics of kindergarten. Specifically, ROOTS focuses on three key areas of whole number understanding (a) Counting and Cardinality (b) Number Operations and (c) Base 10/Place Value.

Target Grades:
K
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Computation
  • Concepts and/or word problems
  • Whole number arithmetic
  • Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
  • Algebra
Where to Obtain:
CTL Marketplace, University of Oregon
Center on Teaching & Learning 5292 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5292
888-497-4290
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/movingup/kfoundation
Initial Cost:
$250.00 per teacher
Replacement Cost:
$10.00 per per

ROOTS is sold on the CTL Marketplace as the program Whole Number Foundations Level K. Materials are currently sold as downloadable PDFs with a Distribution License Agreement and printing guidelines. Customers print the number of copies they purchased. The Intervention Kit includes two teacher books with a teacher’s guide and lessons, Daily Math Practice worksheets, program support materials such as number cards, place value mats, ten-frames and number charts, and a list of manipulatives required for program implementation. Manipulatives are not included with the purchase of the Intervention Kit, but are commonly found in kindergarten classrooms and may be purchased from educational retailers.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
1-4 hours of training

The minimum qualifications for ROOTS instructors are that they be instructional assistants and/or paraprofessionals. The program does not assume that the instructor has expertise in a given area. In the research study, instructional assistants (IAs) attended two half-day trainings, and regular on-going coaching support was provided to facilitate high levels of implementation fidelity. The initial workshop focused on the instructional objectives related to Lessons 1-25, the critical content of kindergarten mathematics, small-group management techniques, and the instructional practices that have been empirically validated to increase student math achievement. In the second workshop the same format was followed as in workshop 1 but with a focus on the second half of the curriculum, Lessons 26-50. Workshops were organized around three principles: (a) active participation, (b) content focused, and (c) coherence. Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support by contacting: Email: support@dibels.uoregon.edu Phone: 1-888-497-4290


Training materials were developed and field-tested initially as part of an IES grant to study the impact of a core kindergarten mathematics program. Materials and manuals underwent initial development and continued refinement as part of the work of that grant. A second grant four year grant from IES to study the efficacy of ROOTS allowed further minor refinement of curricular and support material. All IES studies were conducted with the target population of interest.

Access to Technical Support:
E-mail contact for information: support@dibels.uoregon.edu
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
20
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
18
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

ROOTS is a 50-lesson kindergarten intervention program designed to develop procedural fluency with and conceptual understanding of whole number concepts. ROOTS is delivered by instructional assistants to small groups consisting of 4-5 students, 4 to 5 times per week, for 10-12 weeks during the second half of the school year. Each ROOTS lesson is approximately 20 minutes in duration and includes 4 to 5 brief math activities that center on whole number concepts and skills. ROOTS provides in-depth instruction in whole number concepts by linking the informal mathematics developed prior to kindergarten to the formal mathematics of kindergarten. Specifically, ROOTS focuses on three key areas of whole number understanding (a) Counting and Cardinality (b) Number Operations and (c) Base 10/Place Value.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

selected Computation
selected Concepts and/or word problems
selected Whole number arithmetic
selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
Center on Teaching & Learning 5292 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5292
Phone Number
888-497-4290
Website
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/movingup/kfoundation

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$250.00
Unit of cost
teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$10.00
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

ROOTS is sold on the CTL Marketplace as the program Whole Number Foundations Level K. Materials are currently sold as downloadable PDFs with a Distribution License Agreement and printing guidelines. Customers print the number of copies they purchased. The Intervention Kit includes two teacher books with a teacher’s guide and lessons, Daily Math Practice worksheets, program support materials such as number cards, place value mats, ten-frames and number charts, and a list of manipulatives required for program implementation. Manipulatives are not included with the purchase of the Intervention Kit, but are commonly found in kindergarten classrooms and may be purchased from educational retailers.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   5

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
20
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
18
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
1-4 hours of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The minimum qualifications for ROOTS instructors are that they be instructional assistants and/or paraprofessionals. The program does not assume that the instructor has expertise in a given area. In the research study, instructional assistants (IAs) attended two half-day trainings, and regular on-going coaching support was provided to facilitate high levels of implementation fidelity. The initial workshop focused on the instructional objectives related to Lessons 1-25, the critical content of kindergarten mathematics, small-group management techniques, and the instructional practices that have been empirically validated to increase student math achievement. In the second workshop the same format was followed as in workshop 1 but with a focus on the second half of the curriculum, Lessons 26-50. Workshops were organized around three principles: (a) active participation, (b) content focused, and (c) coherence. Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support by contacting: Email: support@dibels.uoregon.edu Phone: 1-888-497-4290

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
Training materials were developed and field-tested initially as part of an IES grant to study the impact of a core kindergarten mathematics program. Materials and manuals underwent initial development and continued refinement as part of the work of that grant. A second grant four year grant from IES to study the efficacy of ROOTS allowed further minor refinement of curricular and support material. All IES studies were conducted with the target population of interest.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

E-mail contact for information: support@dibels.uoregon.edu

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Clarke, B., Doabler, C. T., Smolkowski, K., Kosty, D. B., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Strand Cary, M. (2014). Examining the efficacy of a tier 2 kindergarten mathematics intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219414538514

Study Information

Study Citations

Clarke, B., Doabler, C., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Fien, H. & Strand Cary, M. (2011). Examining the Efficacy of a Tier 2 Kindergarten Intervention Report. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students were nested within classrooms, which were randomly assigned to treatment (ROOTS) or control.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Participating teachers (n=29) were asked to, “please select 5 students whom you think would benefit from a small group math intervention program.” These 143 nominated students comprised our student sample.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
ELM + ROOTS is the treatment group.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
ELM-only is the control group.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten 54 57 0.03
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments 10 11 0.05
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 1
Not Identified With a Disability 44 45 0.08

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 41 35 0.29
Not English Language Learner 13 22 0.37

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 25 27 0.00
Male 29 30 0.02

Mean Effect Size

0.12

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
Full day kindergarten classrooms who participated in the ELM study were randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions, blocking on teachers’ ELM experience (one year or none) and school. Fourteen classrooms were in the treatment condition (ELM+Roots) and 15 classrooms were in the control condition (ELM-only).

What was the unit of assignment?
Teachers
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
selected Teachers
not selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
5
Minimum group size
4
Maximum group size
5

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
18.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
20.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Fourteen instructional assistants (IAs) participated in the study, of which thirteen were female and all identified themselves as White. Three of the IAs had college degrees and two held current teacher certifications. In this sample, nine of the IAs had four or more years experience as an instructional assistant and all but four of the IAs had completed college level coursework in mathematics. IAs taught the ROOTS program. Participating IAs attended three PD workshops focused on the ROOTS curriculum. The initial PD workshop focused on the instructional objectives related to Lessons 1-25, the critical content of kindergarten mathematics, small-group management techniques, and the instructional practices that have been empirically validated to increase student math achievement (e.g., teacher provided academic feedback). In the second and third workshops the same format was followed as in workshop 1 but with a focus on the second half of the ROOTS curriculum, Lessons 26-50. Workshops were 4 hours in length.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Online logs completed by the 14 instructional assistants (IAs) who delivered the ROOTS intervention. Research staff observed ROOTS instruction 1-3 times over the course of the study and rated fidelity of implementation using a 3-point rating scale where 3 represented “full implementation,” 2 represented “partial implementation,” and 1 was “not taught”.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Online logs revealed that groups generally completed all 50 ROOTS lessons during the year. IAs demonstrated high fidelity scores (M = 2.92, SD = 0.06) for the activities prescribed. Seventy five percent implementation would correspond to a 2.5 on our scales thus the average score of 2.92 represents high levels of fidelity above the 75% criteria. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) representing inter-rater reliability showed substantial agreement between observers (ICCs = 0.67).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Dash
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
We assessed intervention effects on each of the primary outcomes with a mixed model (multilevel) time by condition analysis (Murray, 1998). This tests differences between conditions on change in outcomes from the fall of kindergarten (T1) to the spring (T2). The specific model tests time coded 0 at T1 and 1 at T2, condition coded 0 for control and 1 for ROOTS, and the interaction between the two. With 29 schools, tests of time by condition used 27 degrees of freedom. The analyses included students identified as at risk for math difficulties across both conditions. The analysis included all available data—whether or not students’ scores were present at both time points—to estimate differences between assessment times and between conditions, which minimizes the potential for bias due to missing data. The nested time by condition analysis accounts the intraclass correlation associated with multiple students nested within the same schools. As a test of net differences, it also provides an unbiased and straightforward interpretation of the results (Cribbie & Jamieson, 2000, Fitzmaurice, Laird, & Ware, 2004). Model estimation. We fit models to our data with SAS PROC MIXED version 9.1 (SAS Institute, 2009) using restricted maximum likelihood (REML), generally recommended for multilevel models (Hox, 2002). From each model, we estimated fixed effects and variance components. Maximum likelihood estimation for the time by condition analysis allows the use of all available data and provides potentially less biased results even in the face of substantial attrition, provided the missing data were missing at random (Schafer & Graham, 2002). In the present study, we did not believe that attrition or other missing data represented a meaningful departure from the missing at random assumption, meaning that missing data did not likely depend on unobserved determinants of the outcomes of interest (Little & Rubin, 2002). The models assume independent and normally distributed observations. We addressed the first, more important assumption (van Belle, 2008) by explicitly modeling the multilevel nature of the data. Regression methods have also been found quite robust to violations of normality and outliers have a limited influence on the results in a variety of multilevel modeling scenarios (Bloom, Bos, & Lee, 1999; Donner & Klar, 1996; Fitzmaurice et al., 2004; Maas & Hox, 2004; 2004b; Murray et al., 2006). This feature of multilevel models also eases concerns about the use of different scoring methods used for different measures in the analyses (e.g., raw scores, scaled scores, standard scores). Effect sizes. To ease interpretation of effects we computed an effect size, Hedges’ g (Hedges, 1981), for each fixed effect. Hedges’ g represents an individual-level effect size comparable to Cohen’s d (Rosenthal, Rosnow, & Rubin, 2000), except that Cohen’s d uses the sample standard deviation while Hedges’ g uses the population standard deviation (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008).

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: ROOTS was evaluated in one qualifying study in Boston. On SESAT, TEMA-3, and NSB measures, students in ROOTS gained more than controls with an average effect size of +0.32. This qualifies ROOTS for the ESSA “Strong” category. However, there were no differences on a follow-up measure given in the middle of first grade.

Number of Studies: 1

Average Effect Size: 0.32

Full Report

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.