THE EFFECTS OF AN INTERACTIVE ONLINE LEARNING PLATFORM ON
SECOND-GRADE STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE
____________________________________________________________
A Dissertation
Presented to:
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
____________________________________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree:
Doctorate of Special Education
_____________________________________________________________
By:
Alyssa Swartzfager
December 2023
©Swartzfager, 2023

Keywords:
mathematics intervention, IXL Learning, place value, instructional technology, educational
technology, educational effects of COVID-19

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Page

Committee Members

Page 4

Abstract

Page 5

Dedication And Acknowledgements

Page 6

List of Figures and Tables

Page 7

Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 9

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Page 31

Chapter 3: Methodology

Page 51

Chapter 4: Results of Quantitative Data

Page 78

Chapter 5: Interpreting Results

Page 101

References

Page 131

Appendix A

Page 142

Appendix B

Page 147

Appendix C

Page 152

Appendix D

Page 153

Appendix E

Page 154

Appendix F

Page 155

Appendix G

Page 156

Appendix H

Page 161

Appendix I

Page 167

3

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Committee Chair: Dr. Jeremy Lynch

Committee Member: Dr. Michael Stimac

Committee Member: Dr. Toni Mild

4

ABSTRACT

As the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to surface, educational deficits are the main
concern for many educators across the United States. Research has spelled out various effects the
global pandemic and remote learning has had on families, especially children and their academic
progress. Regardless of the cause, educators are planning their approach on how to fill the
educational gaps presented to them to ensure all students achieve academic success. While
utilizing a single subject criterion changing quantitative methodology, the purpose of this study
was to identify whether IXL Learning was a successful intervention for second-grade students
demonstrating a need for remediation of place value skills, as measured by researcher-created,
curriculum-based weekly assessments. Data shows a slight increase in weekly researchercreated, curriculum-based assessments centering around place value skills, a large number of
exposed place value questions for each student, and a slight increase in place value scores.
However, a general pattern of criterion shifting was not found while utilizing IXL Learning as an
interventional practice. It is recommended that a blended educational approach with various
components be utilized for instructing place value concepts at the second-grade level.

5

DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The journey through this program would not have been possible without the continuous
love and support of my wonderful husband, sons, and family. Following dreams sometimes
means making sacrifices. Thank you for giving me grace through this phase of life. I love you!
To my cohort, we have supported each other through one of the most challenging
obstacles to endeavor. Participating in an online cohort program may eliminate some of the
personal relationships that an in-person program would promote. However, I have made some
wonderful friends and engaged in a plethora of professional networking with my cohort.
To my colleagues, thank you for allowing me to steal your students, pick your brain,
observe your classrooms, and ask you to revise my extra-long papers. To the administration,
thank you for allowing me to utilize the data and daily practices working toward dissertation
studies and assisting our students. Your support along the way has been crucial.
I also owe a great amount of gratitude to Dr. Jeremy Lynch, my dissertation chair.
Without him, I would still be taking classes, waiting on email responses, and I would not have
pushed myself to perform at the level that he expected me to.
Lastly, this work is dedicated to the mentor who put the thought of “Dr. Swartzfager”
into my head all those years ago, Dr. Brian Maguire. Someday, I hope to prepare teachers as he
prepared me starting in 4th grade, continuing into my undergraduate, graduate school and then to
my first elementary classroom. I sure wish I could have seen him performing his “Dr. Brian and
Friends” stories, skits, and songs to my personal children as they enter the same elementary
school where he left such an impact.

6

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

Figures & Tables

Page

Figure 1.1: Place Value Instructional Components
Figure 1.2: Spring 2023 Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment Results
Figure 1.3: USAFacts NAEP Math Scores 2019 and 2022
Figure 2.1: Technology Instruction Benefit for Students
Figure 2.2: 16 Subcategories of Place Value Within IXL Learning-Grade 2
Figure 2.3: Four Components of IXL Learning Personalized Instruction
Figure 2.4: 2nd Grade Place Value PA Common Core Standards
Figure 2.5: The Standards for Mathematical Practices
Table 2.6: Research Question
Figure 2.7: The Nation’s Report Card Fourth Grade Math Scores 2022
Figure 2.8: The Nation’s Report Card NAEP Mathematics Scores 2022
Image 3.1: IXL Learning Electronic Reward System Icon Examples
Figure 3.2: Researcher-Created Data Collection Template
Figure 3.3: IXL Learning Researcher-Created Intervention Study Schedule
Figure 3.4: Criterion Changing Progression Graph For Student Data Collection
Figure 4.1: Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Overall Scores
2023
Figure 4.2: Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic “Numbers and Place Value to
100” Scores 2023
Figure 4.3: IXL Learning’s Educator Progress Monitoring Screen Example
Figure 4.4: Total Number of Questions Encountered Per Student
Figure 4.5: Average Scores Per Weekly Assessment
Figure 4.6.1: Student #1 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.6.2: Student #1 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.7.1: Student #2 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.7.2: Student #2 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.8.1: Student #3 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.8.2: Student #3 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores

12
20
26
34
36
37
39
41
44
49
49
60
62
64
69
79
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
86
87
87

7

Figure 4.9.1: Student #4 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.9.2: Student #4 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.10.1: Student #5 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.10.2: Student #5 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.11.1: Student #6 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.11.2: Student #6 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.12.1: Student #7 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.12.2: Student #7 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.13.1: Student #8 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.13.2: Student #8 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.14.1: Student #9 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression
Figure 4.14.2: Student #9 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly
Assessment Scores
Figure 4.15: 16 IXL Learning Place Value Criterion Subcategories
Figure 4.16: Total Number of Days Spent Within Each Subcategory
Figure 5.1: Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Individual Record Form

88
89
90
90
91
92
93
93
94
95
96
96
98
98
118

8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Institute of Education Services indicates many United States (U.S.) students struggle
with mathematics, including those with and without disabilities (Chhin et al., 2023). Even though
high-quality instruction is provided in the general education setting today, still 15-20% of
students are continuing to struggle with academic skills (Vanderbilt University, 2023). Despite
targeted interventions in a Tier three or tertiary level of instruction, 30-50% of students will not
respond appropriately or successfully to the general interventions provided by educators
(Vanderbilt University, 2023). COVID has only exacerbated these disparities (Chhin et al.,
2023), requiring a more immediate reaction. The pandemic has shifted the Response to
Intervention (RTI) framework to a distribution curve, focusing on providing interventions in the
core classroom in addition to the intervention setting (Del Mar, 2023). Previously, RTI was
designed to assist in identifying students with learning disabilities and other behaviors, to assist
in instructional quality, and to provide students with opportunities within their academic careers
(School of Education and Human Services, University of Kansas, 2023). Because more students
are requiring interventions in Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the RTI pyramid in each classroom, the bell
curve is evolving (Del Mar, 2023) where more students are requiring interventions postpandemic. Literacy Today clearly explained education post-pandemic: educators have been
challenged by the “ever-evolving conditions” presented by the pandemic (Zirogiannis, 2021, p.
45). These variables and conditions play a part in the data collected at a rural public education
district in the northeastern United States, specifically at the end of first grade and the beginning
of the second-grade school year. How do educators prevent educational deficits from continuing
or growing? How do educators improve students’ mathematical scores? What is research saying?

9

Given the lack of empirical evidence, the problem within this study is identifying the relationship
between a computer-based intervention (IXL Learning) and mathematical (place value) skills of
students in the regular education setting of second-grade post- COVID-19 pandemic learning.
Research indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic has created the largest disruption to
education in history, affecting 1.6 billion students and more than 94% of the world’s student
population (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021, p. 133). The United States persistently indicates lower
math scores compared to other countries (Bvorel, 2021). Barry University shares that educators
were most concerned about losing ground in the subject of mathematics during and post
pandemic instruction (Bvorel, 2021). This frames the prevalence of mathematics related
performance declines pre-pandemic, but more specifically, performance is still declining postpandemic. Within the small, rural school in western Pennsylvania, educators are being
challenged with the many student deficits today. Whether the causation of these deficits was
COVID-19 or not, educators are scrambling to support students in closing these educational gaps
and improving place value mathematical skills.
As the 2023-2024 school year approached, teachers of first and second grades met on
multiple occasions to devise the plan that best supported struggling learners entering second
grade in the fall of 2023. During the first-grade school year, 13 students qualified and received
special education services from 2022-2023. At the end of the first-grade year, 79% of students in
the grade scored proficient on the Savvas EnVision Grade 1 Readiness test. This is a 42%
increase from the beginning of the year. Because the Readiness Test assesses the students’
readiness for that grade, this means 79% of students had mastered first-grade skills by the end of
the first-grade year. The remaining 21% had not mastered first-grade skills but were promoted to
second grade based on report card letter grades and overall progress in the grade. This created a
10

challenge for the second-grade teachers, as reading scores were similar to mathematics, and
student needs were high.
Research shares a variety of interventions that are successful for specific learners through
a variety of presentation modes. However, research does not specifically look into how IXL
Learning may assist a second-grader’s skills in the category of place value like this study does.
Extending previous research is the goal of the study as the COVID-19 era has already reached its
climax, with educational deficits becoming apparent and leaving educators to question what they
can do to assist students in the future or to make up for the pandemic deficits. Based on the
district’s diagnostic assessment data, place value is a large concern for beginning second-grade
students. Because research indicates place value as a foundational skill, the district is faced with
the problem of determining how to improve second-grade place value skills in an efficient
manner and timeframe.
What Is Place Value?
Place value is defined as the position of a number that tells the value, kind, and quantity
of an item (White, 2022). Wilkinson (2017, p. 1) explains that a single digit number remains
constant, while a multidigit number changes depending on the value of the digit. It is a way of
naming or representing numbers, allowing students and educators to write and say numbers for
whole numbers, parts of numbers and the possibility of mental computation with those numbers
(Major, 2012, p. 1). This concept has been adopted world-wide (Wilkinson, 2017, p. 9).
Decomposing numbers is foundational for traditional and alternative algorithms for all
operations in basic math (Walkowiak, 2016, p. 453). Conceptual understanding relies on place
value knowledge and understanding (Caldwell, 2020, p. 8). According to the Common Core
State Standards for Mathematics, in second grade, students will compare two three-digit
11

numbers, focus on understanding three digits representing hundreds, tens, and ones, (Walkowiak,
2016, p. 454) and continue progressing their skills at each successive grade level. As research
indicates, student foundational place value skills will assist them in future content, skills, and
application throughout life. Since the onset of COVID-19, the decline in student progress and
growth has been pronounced. This is a concern for educators as they move forward. Addressing
the learning gaps identified in the last three years will assist student progress as they journey
through the rest of their primary and secondary curriculums, eventually preparing them for
adulthood.
Figure 1.1
Place Value Instructional Components

Note. This graphic organizer was produced by the researcher, summarizing the place value
instructional components and stages found within current research by Hartnell and Wilkinson.
(Hartnell, 2018, p. 36 & Wilkinson, 2017, p. 20)

12

Why Do Students Need Place Value As A Foundational Skill?
Place value is a challenging concept for students within primary grades. Because
understanding place value requires students to utilize the same abilities as fractional and
algebraic reasoning, place value is considered a foundational skill in mathematics (MacDonald et
al., 2018, p. 17). As a foundational skill for measurement, decimal numbers, percentages and
higher mathematical learning, place value continues to be crucial content for primary students
(Wilkinson, 2017, p. i). Primary teachers identify the need of understanding place value concepts
as students begin to learn multi-digit addition problems, multi-digit subtraction problems (Nagel
& Swingen, 1998), number words, written symbols, and quantities (Flevares et al., 2022, p. 360).
Nagel and Swingen describe place value as an “essential foundation concept” that students
require before learning multi-digit addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division and is
considered a critical step in the development of comprehension of number concepts (1998).
Regrouping, multi-digit multiplication, and the decimal system are based on foundational place
value skills (White, 2022). If students lack place value skills, their mathematical learning may
become stalled as they lack the higher-level thinking skills needed in the primary curriculum
progression (Nagel & Swingen, 1998), or they may experience more complex academic needs
like trouble understanding number-based information called dyscalculia (Kong & Chan, 2021, p.
446). According to White (2022), students cannot progress if they have not mastered place value
skills first and they will not be able to construct meanings for multi-digit numbers (Gheung &
Ansari, 2021, p. 227). Number concept development is most critical from preschool to third
grade age ranges (Onal & Altiner, 2021, p. 29), as they build foundational mathematical skills to
build upon in future grade levels.

13

Students who struggle to master place value skills and an abstract understanding of
numbers may often give up on learning math (White, 2022). Because seven- and eight-year-olds
are learning best from concrete operational methods, abstract concepts may cause
misunderstandings and confusion (Onal & Altiner, 2021, p. 30). Providing a solid foundation of
place value skills will set students up for mathematical success as they progress through the K-12
curriculums. Nagel and Swingen indicated that by engaging in place value experiences, students
may experience learning opportunities in addition, subtraction, and vocabulary within
mathematics (1998). As Nagel and Swingen interviewed elementary students, they were able to
identify emergent categories representing students’ language and understanding of place value in
their work samples or responses. These sequential levels of place value understanding include
counting, beginning process of subtracting or adding without attention to place value,
manipulative understanding represented by trading or exchanging, partial understanding of place
value, and demonstrated comprehension of place value (Nagel & Swingen, 1998).
When to Teach Place Value
Place value is the foundation of teaching math to any student from preschool to algebra
(White, 2022) and is typically taught in grades K-5 (National Center on Intensive Intervention,
2015, p. 1). Understanding place value may take several years of instruction and practice
(Wilkinson, 2017, p. 16). As instruction typically begins in kindergarten, each year allows
students to expand, enrich, and apply understandings of place value (Caldwell, 2020, p. 3). A
brief study by Kong and Chan (2021, p. 446) indicates students are adept at initializing and
comparing place values prior to being introduced to place value concepts. This implies that
students may naturally gain place value skills prior to initial instruction in the K-5 setting.

14

Place value is known as a complex process where research indicates students may
understand place value concepts at different components of the same activity (Wilkinson, 2017,
p.2). A large variety of strategies have been exercised in current research to supplement place
value instruction at the primary level. Wilkinson (2017, p. i) reports the sequence strategy, mixed
strategy, separate strategy, and a grouping strategy utilized in current studies while the strategy
of use indicates the students’ place value understanding. Siegler constructs a theory called
“overlapping waves” that explains how students’ understanding of place value is related to the
activity they are currently engaged in, and the more advanced strategies come as they engage in
higher levels of mathematical understanding (Wilkinson, 2017, p. 3). Students may have more
than one co-existing strategy. Other strategies found within current research include counting-all,
continuation-counting, counting-on, sequence, sequence-separate, separate, and addition
(Wilkinson, 2017, p. 22). Wilkinson (2017, p. 12) also explains that conceptual knowledge
where students learn concepts with abstract or general principles is flexible and adaptable but
requires more time to acquire, while procedural learning is typically obtained quickly by
imitation but is prone to error or less generalized. Place value is considered a conceptual skill
that requires some abstract thinking from these primary students who are used to learning
through concrete concepts and manipulatives at the primary level, specifically second grade.
Conceptual Frameworks
Key concepts examined during the study include instructional and educational technology
uses, mathematical interventions, COVID-19 pandemic educational effects, and the timing of
when a student can best learn place value skills. Research was examined specifically on the use
of IXL Learning. Various evidence was presented by IXL Learning that supports its use as an
intervention tool in all subject areas. However, little research is published regarding the use of
15

IXL Learning as a sole intervention and the relationship between specific second-grade place
value skills. The design of the intervention was created while utilizing IXL Learning and
previewing other curriculum-based assessments like the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic
Assessment. Because curriculum-based assessments (CBA) have been utilized for the last 30
years, it is considered an effective formative assessment for all abilities/disabilities, frequently
appearing in educational literature (Hall et al., 2003, p. 2).
The theoretical framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) presents a guide for
educators to encourage presenting materials in flexible ways that offer a variety of presentations
for all types of learners. This allows students to comprehend, demonstrate their skills, and
continue to be motivated in their learning (Hall et al., 2003, p. 10) as their assignments are
tailored to showcase their strengths and supplement their needs. This study was created with the
UDL framework in mind, as the individual needs of each learner was considered and identified.
Because IXL Learning is an online platform, presenting the intervention in an electronic version
may meet the learning needs of many learners today, including the visual learners.
Because there are three main intervention frameworks, educators must determine which
one will meet the needs of their students in the most effective way. The three main intervention
frameworks include Response to Intervention, Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), and
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) (Del Mar, 2023). The framework focused
on within this study is the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework where student data is used
to assess student needs and educational plans. Ongoing assessment and analysis of progress
aligns with the increasing intervention intensities (Del Mar, 2023). The study conducted falls
within Tier 2 of RTI- Targeted Interventions. This step allows for differentiated support for those
students who have not mastered the place value skills and is supplemental to the regular
16

curriculum lessons to be taught and reviewed further into the scope of the Savvas EnVision 2 nd
Grade curriculum.
At the conclusion of the study, students will join the Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) intervention programming, as the district pilots the program for the 2023-2024 school
year. This allows students to obtain tiered instruction and support across the board: instructional,
academic, and behavioral (Del Mar, 2023). This also allows the faculty and administration of the
district to dive deep into the formal data, identifying specific areas of need for each student.
Providing Tier 3 intervention could be critical in the primary grades.
What causes “The Bubble”?
As the district identifies the needs of the second graders of the 2023-2024 school year,
they often refer to the group as “The Bubble”. Currently, 76% of the 2022-2023 first-grade
students are reading at basic or below basic levels as measured by the Renaissance STAR
Assessments. In addition, 21% of students scored below proficient at the end of the first-grade
year utilizing the curriculum-based Savvas EnVision Mathematics Readiness Assessment.
Variables such as curriculum sequencing, socioeconomic status, childcare, lack of subscriptions,
insufficient materials, COVID-19 procedures, and minimal faculty instruction have played into
why this specific grade level is struggling. As Onal and Altiner (2021, p. 28) examine, students’
“readiness levels” are not sufficient at age seven for learning place value concepts. Regardless of
the cause of this problem, schools need to prepare to support students with various deficits,
specifically at age 7 in skills including place value.
Because there have been a variety of concerns following the COVID-19 pandemic onset,
a need for a successful, educational, and standards aligned intervention program is high,
specifically in mathematics and reading. Teachers from the district have observed some of the
17

following concerns regarding overall student well-being to promote academics: Faculty have
observed an increase in health complaints possibly indicating psychosomatic or mental health
concerns including headaches, stomachaches, and nervousness. The school nurse reports an
increase of 898 visits from the 2021-2022 school year to the 2022-2023 school year. The
Educator’s Room explains a probable reason for these mental health concerns. Stress induced
from COVID-19 present altered student brains, causing early onset maturation including
hippocampal and amygdala changes within the brain. Because these areas of the brain regulate
emotion, memory, and learning, educators are seeing more mental health symptoms postpandemic (Odom, 2023). Students may be visiting the nurse because of COVID-19 academic
gaps that, in return, produce physical ailments. Students may also be visiting the nurse more
because there is not currently a guidance counselor within the elementary building to assist them
with their mental health needs, feelings, behaviors, or emotions.
Current second-grade students within the district are categorized as part of “the bubble”
grouping, demonstrating a lack of fine motor skills needed for daily school tasks including
writing, coloring, cutting, and gluing. Foundational skills including holding a pencil or knowing
how to maneuver scissors seems to be an increasing concern for the primary grades. Students
typically received instruction from their parents or childcare workers prior to the remote learning
conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, students may not have had consistent and
productive instruction while at home. Typical students within the district enter second grade with
these foundational school skills. It appears many fine motor skills need to be initially taught and
remediated as education bounces back from the remote learning of the pandemic.
Executive functioning skills for primary students appear poor within the district. Skills
like sitting in their seat for various lengths of time, waiting their turn, raising their hand to talk,
18

walking in a line through the hallway, or even finding the page number are skills current secondgrade students are lacking. This appears as an immaturity or a student deficit to veteran educators
compared to pre-COVID times. Observations of current executive functioning at the secondgrade level encourages teachers to question if students attended an in-person preschool program
or if they were homebound during the COVID shutdowns, causing them to fall behind in school
functions, behaviors, and skills.
In the spring of 2023, all first-grade students were assessed using the Savvas EnVision
Grade 2 Diagnostic Assessment in preparation for second grade. Figure 1.2 demonstrates the
strengths and weaknesses of the baseline assessment data. Topics of Time, Money, and
Measurement are typically taught at the end of the second-grade school year according to the
Savvas EnVision Grade 2 Curriculum sequencing. It was predicted students would indicate
deficits in these areas, as they are “end-of-the-year” second-grade skills. Therefore, place value,
a foundational and initial second-grade skill, was selected for this particular study, as it also
indicated a deficit in scores.
Figure 1.2 demonstrates the Savvas Envision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A
given to all first-grade students in May of 2023, prior to starting the second-grade year. The data
revealed that almost 30% of students were still scoring, “not proficient” or below the secondgrade level on the overall diagnostic score. The five skills indicating 60% or higher are typically
taught at the end of the second- grade school year according to the Savvas EnVision Curriculum
sequencing, therefore explaining the high percentage of non-proficient scores. However, the
Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade curriculum does not have a lesson designated for the instruction of
place value until Unit 9 of the curriculum. Prior to Unit 9, students are asked to utilize place

19

value in addition and subtraction strategies, indicating a flaw in the sequencing of units for
second-grade students.
Figure 1.2
Spring 2023 EnVision Diagnostic Assessment Results

Note. The data collected from the Spring 2023 Savvas EnVision 2 nd Grade Diagnostic
Assessment was utilized when creating this graph by the researcher to identify the place value
deficit and intervention importance compared to other second-grade skills.
If place value is presented early, it can be built upon and generalized as new skills are
included in the curriculum set by Savvas. Without the place value skills identified, there is less of
a foundation for learning the remaining essential skills of second grade, also factoring into the
decline of overall mathematics performance in the future. Of the 68 students assessed in the

20

initial assessment prior to the start of the study, the average score was 30.89 out of 60 possible
points, equating to an average score of 51.48%. The district strives for 80% proficiency.
Therefore, IXL Learning may be able to provide a successful intervention for students within
“the bubble” group in the 2023-2024 school year and increase that proficiency score on the final
assessment of the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Form B Assessment at the conclusion of the
study’s six-week duration. Because the district already had a subscription to IXL Learning,
students were familiar with the platform, as well as the veteran teacher/researcher within the
district. However, this study will expand the use of IXL Learning for educators, in hopes of
providing supportive data to drive best-practices in the future, with or without IXL Learning.
This list of concerns regarding COVID-19 educational effects is limited to the concerns
at the primary level. Secondary and higher education settings may have even more concerns
regarding education post-COVID-19. While there is no direct research to say that COVID-19
caused students to exhibit psychosomatic symptoms, to experience mental health concerns, to
demonstrate immature skills, or to score lower than previous classes in mathematics and reading,
there is research indicating an increase of concern in each of these areas. Current research has
addressed the connection between each of these concerns and students’ academic success.
Research Problem/Significance of Study
Various intervention programs and strategies have been tried to help these struggling
learners, specifically in their mathematical place value skills. Literature findings indicate a wide
variety of mathematical interventions arising, including small groups, whole groups, flash cards,
online platforms including Reflex Math, FastBridge, ABC Mouse, RocketMath, and many more
arising as education evolves post-COVID. Current research does not identify one strategy,
program, or technique that works best for students. This may be because all students learn
21

differently, budgets are arranged differently, and resources or professional development are
limited. Educators are concerned and looking for research and evidence-based intervention
programs for their students, specifically in the post-COVID time frame. As an intervention,
researchers may question if IXL Learning will improve the place value skills of second-grade
students when utilized three times a week for thirty-minutes in a controlled setting. The findings
of this study can relate to future primary educators and assist in future interventional and
instructional practices to best assist all learners.
Delimitations/Assumption
Delimitations within this study include the recruitment of participants. Gender, race,
culture, and financial household statistics lay outside the scope of research within the study and
were not included. Narrowing the study to specific place value skills allowed for manageable and
relevant data collection at the second-grade level standards. Another delimitation of the study
was the exclusion of surveys and questionnaires regarding student opinions, parent opinions, and
professional opinions of place value skills or interventions programs. The questions surrounding
student, parent, and educator opinions are beyond the scope of the study. The analysis and
sample size of the study are sufficient in detecting significant increases/decreases in the
assessment data collection utilizing researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments, Savvas
Realize EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessments and IXL Learning programing. Results of
the study are generalizable across similar school districts, specifically in small school districts of
western Pennsylvania. The results of the study will produce meaningful assumptions regarding
the effectiveness of IXL Learning that will promote best teaching practices for current and future
second-grade students. Results may assist educators in providing instruction post-COVID-19
educational struggles.
22

Another delimitation of the study includes the time of the study. Instead of allowing the
study to happen over the summer or during regular mathematical instruction, the researcher
conducted the study within the first six weeks of the new second-grade school year to prevent
data collection interruptions or variability. The location and presentation of the study was not
conducted in various rooms or with various instructors to provide consistency in data results and
analysis. Students were read all questions on assessments to eliminate reading deficit
complications to data and to provide consistency to the elementary student.
Educational/Mathematical Instruction Challenges and Possible Solutions
Educational challenges experienced by educators that prevent high quality instruction
include rebounding from lost academics, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing
effective and efficient interventions, lack of staffing to implement best mathematical practices,
and lack of resources made available to educators to do so. Furthermore, educators may
experience lack of reliable internet connection or access to digital devices (Pokhrel & Chhetri,
2021, p. 135). Although many districts strive for a 1:1 technology-to-student ratio, funding and
manpower does not always agree. Increased screen time, lack of parental guidance or an
unproductive working environment, (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021, p. 135) may also affect
educational success, specifically in the home setting for students. While in the school setting,
negative attitudes of faculty and/or students (Gafoor & Kurukkan, 2015, p. 234) can affect
motivation of students and faculty, resulting in loss of educational opportunities.
Additionally, as the Common Core Mathematics Standards were implemented, parents
became concerned regarding how their child was to learn math- a different way. A challenge that
educators face at the second-grade level is the pushback from families to not use specific
Common Core Mathematical strategies included within the curriculum. Parents were taught a
23

specific way and want their students taught that strategy, too. For example, parents may not have
been instructed on how to use a tens-frame to add two single-digit numbers together. Therefore,
they are confused as to how to help their child at home. They are most likely prone to use a tchart or other strategies to add the two numbers together and will encourage their children to do
the same, despite the variety of strategies they are being exposed to within the general education
curriculum.
Increased parental involvement in student achievement (Gafoor & Kurukkan, 2015, p.
234) would be a great piece to the educational puzzle and a possible solution to educational
challenges. Specific examples of this include weekly mathematics newsletters or a math station
at the school-wide family night event. A weekly newsletter would communicate with parents the
topics of instruction and/or how they could support the instruction in the home. A math table
during a school event may promote excitement and allow for exciting activities that might
include robots, coding, keyboarding, or other technology to increase mathematical motivation. If
all parents are on board with the studies of the child, the child will be given the best education
possible by the teacher and district, while feeling supported by all parties involved. For
educators, effective teacher mentoring, or induction programs would prepare them as they face
the educational challenges listed above, along with professional development webinars,
trainings, and conferences. Grant writing could assist with device and resource purchases, along
with donation websites. Regulation of screen time, interventions, and progress monitoring would
also be a step in the right direction at finding a solution to the challenges facing educators today.
Additionally, there is a plethora of assistance to parents on the internet. Videos found on various
platforms may allow for parents to see a tutorial of how their student is to complete the math

24

work from the lesson taught in class or give them a preview of other strategies implemented to
solve the problem at hand.
When it comes to mathematical instructional challenges, reviewing previous content and
generalization of skills (Gafoor & Kurukkan, 2015, p. 241) can be difficult if skills were not
mastered in previous lessons. This tends to happen often in mathematics, as content builds upon
previous strategies learned or is spiraled throughout different curriculums. If students have not
mastered first-grade content, they may struggle with the second-grade level concepts.
Furthermore, the Savvas EnVision 2 nd Grade curriculum presents the unit on place value, called,
“Numbers to 1,000” in the text as the ninth unit of the program. This indicates a challenge for
students who struggled with place value skills in areas of “Numbers to 100” and are required to
utilize tens and ones place values for addition or subtraction strategies in units one through eight,
prior to reviewing the ones, tens, and hundreds place values. Manipulating and supplementing
the curriculum may be needed for student success utilizing place value concepts.
Testing results also present a challenge in math instruction, as assessment results indicate
the power of the instruction. The New York Times published an article identifying the national
math scoring decline, dropping to levels from two decades ago (Mervosh, 2022). USA Facts
indicate a five-point drop in mathematical scores from 2019 to 2022, as shown in Figure 1.3
(2022). Fourth graders are currently scoring equivalently to 2003 mathematics levels (USAFacts,
2022). If this trend continues, students will be challenged with various new problems to society
including finding a job, knowing the skills for adulthood, completing college courses, and
functioning independently as an adult.

25

Figure 1.3
USAFacts NAEP Math Scores 2019 and 2022

Note. The line graph from USA Facts illustrates the decline in mathematical scores for fourth
graders since 2019. Even though the study focuses on second-grade assessment scores, similar
declines have been identified in current research, supporting such decline in second grade, as
well. (USAFacts, 2022).
There are a variety of solutions to mathematical instructional challenges that educators
face today. If instructors present the instruction in a familiar manner to students (Gafoor &
Kurukkan, 2015, p. 241) and lesson structure is consistent, students may flourish in math lessons
by engaging in routines with the tools they need. When starting the lesson, promoting
metacognition and self-confidence in their mathematical abilities will also assist students in their
progression (Gafoor & Kurukkan, 2015, p. 241). By setting goals with students and educational
teams, best practices can be implemented to promote mathematical success (Gafoor & Kurukkan,
2015, p. 241) for all students.
When utilizing instructional technology, some platforms provide additional resource
opportunities to coach students as they work through specific assignments (Pokhrel & Chhetri,
2021, p. 137). Videos and other helpful resources for students and teachers can support
26

implementation of instructional technology and may provide a solution to challenges presented
upon utilization. IXL Learning explains incorrect answers to students if an incorrect answer was
selected, allowing them to learn from mistakes along the way. This assists in the “lack of time”
or “lack of staffing” concerns for individualized instruction or intervention listed above. Even
though the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted educational practices for all learners, it has provided
educators with the opportunity to “pave the way for introducing digital learning” (Pokhrel &
Chhetri, 2021, p. 133) to all learners of all ages and abilities. Because so many online platforms
work towards individualized interventions or instruction, students are getting tailored programs
without the leg work from the teachers. This allows one teacher to reach a classroom of students
simultaneously, without having to teach multiple lessons simultaneously. The software will
present the information and skills when the teacher cannot, due to assorted reasons including
remote learning, large class size, or differentiated instruction. The teacher’s role still consists of
monitoring student progress and providing the core instruction, while IXL Learning can be used
as a tool to support, reinforce, or remediate the targeted skills identified.
Mathematics is a critical, foundational skill. Therefore, professional development
opportunities can be key to implementing successful instruction. Professional developmental
challenges experienced by educators include the lack of training in interventions, lack of
planning time to implement interventions, lack of funding for conferences or resources, or
teacher burnout.
Teachers are actively and continuously collaborating (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021, p. 137) at
the local and state level to assist in all teaching methods and challenges. This solution can be free
of charge, promoting frequent engagement in collaboration across various different settings.
Many online platforms or educational organizations offer free help and support to teachers as
27

they navigate new tools, practices (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021, p. 137) or even their website with
teacher resources. The Common Core 2nd Grade Mathematical Curriculum presented in the
Savvas EnVision curriculum may imitate a Special Education Model- if students do not
understand one strategy, the teacher will show the students various other strategies to see if those
work better. Many of the addition and subtraction problems explored within the second-grade
standards can be interchanged with a variety of strategies. It is the educator’s job to show
students the various different strategies, while it is the students’ job to select which one works
best for them and/or which strategy will assist them with specific types of questions. Online
blogs, podcasts, and videos are all free and easy ways to expand the teachers’ knowledge and
understanding of the content they present.
For example, www.donorschoose.org (DonorsChoose, 2023) provides a great opportunity
for teachers to create projects to get funded within their community for items or resources that
will help their students, classrooms, and instruction. Educators will make a profile, create the
project with an estimated amount of funding needed, and then share the link with their desired
audience to receive funding online. Once enough donations are complete, educators will receive
the desired items by following the DonorsChoose criteria on their site. Also, applying for grants
and scholarships are ways educators may be able to afford the training that districts do not fund.
In the meantime, a variety of free resources are available at any time and may support the highquality instruction students need.
Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an array of challenges for educators, specifically
in primary mathematical educational practices. Current research and data indicate a need to
improve second-grade place value skills of students referred to as members of “the bubble”.
28

Chapter 1 identifies challenges and possible solutions to these educational difficulties for
educators. Because the obstacle in Chapter 1 has been identified and explained, Chapter 2
presents the current research on second-grade mathematical skills, instructional tools,
interventional programs, online resources, place-value instruction, and the educational effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 3 outlines the structure of this qualitative criterion-changing
single case study, while Chapter 4 identifies the data collected within the study of implementing
IXL Learning as an intervention for second-grade place value skills. Chapter 5 provides
implications represented by the data, along with identifying suggestions for future practices,
research, and replications of the study.
Definition of Terms
Educational Intervention- a set of action items that teachers/administrators can take to improve a
student’s academic progress (Del Mar, 2023)
Curriculum- Based Assessment (CBA)- a set of measurement procedures recording a student’s
performance in the local curriculum as a basis for gathering information to make instructional
decisions (Hall et al, 2003, p. 3)
Instructional Technology (IT)- an area of education centering on instructional design and
development, intended for engaging students and producing effective learning experiences, often
involving new technologies (Kurt, 2017)
Remediation- the practice of “re-teaching” content that has previously been taught but not
mastered, centering on mastering a specific skill or concept (Lake Michigan Academy, 2021)
Response to Intervention (RTI)- a support utilized to provide high quality education to students
with disabilities, developed for prediction, remediation, and prevention (School of Education and
Human Sciences, University of Kansas, 2023)
29

30

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

What happened during the COVID-19 pandemic?
In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic spread to the United States. Schools were
forced to make educational and safe decisions for all their students, including how they would
electronically or remotely provide education to all of their students to prevent the spread of the
virus. Lockdowns were considered an effective way to handle a global pandemic and to reduce
the spread of the coronavirus (Merlo et al., 2021, p. 2). However, as research surfaces, this
strategy may have been more harmful than helpful in the long run regarding various aspects of
education for students. Instead of calmly transitioning to a pandemic educational approach,
teachers began “emergency remote learning, disaster distance learning, or panic-gogy”
(Kamenetz, 2022, p. 20) as they attempted to uphold the revolutionary policy of educating every
child during the school shutdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many states attempted to hold
off shutting down schools if they could in order to best serve their students, knowing that the
outcome of discontinuing education would be problematic in the future if not handled delicately.
Remote learning was the plan for districts during state, county, and district shutdowns.
Online platforms including SeeSaw, Google Classroom, and D2L were becoming popular ways
to distribute what lessons educators could as the pandemic continued. SeeSaw is a tool utilized
by educators to assist in communication, curriculum, interactive lessons, and electronic
portfolios to support student learning (SeeSaw Learning, Inc., 2023). Google Classroom of
Google Workspace for Education is a platform that promotes personalized, measurable, and
manageable learning experiences for students and educators (Google, 2023). D2L prides itself as
a tool to empower educators with technology, content, and services to assist in their remote
31

instruction (D2L Corporation, 2023). Various video conferencing tools including Zoom, Loom,
and Screencastify were utilized in the presentation manner of remote educational lessons, along
with various interactive online platforms including IXL Learning, Reflex Math, and ABC
Mouse. Zoom is a simplified video conferencing software that also includes team chat, phone
and other collaboration tools that may be utilized on any device (Zoom Video Communications,
Inc., 2023) and is frequently utilized in businesses or schools. Loom and Screencastify are screen
recording and video editing tools (Screencastify, LLC, 2023) assisting educators with lesson
presentation in a remote manner. Reflex Math is an effective, fluency-promoting program
implemented to grow basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts in a game-like
design (Explore Learning, 2023). ABC Mouse is an online platform, leveled curriculum that
presents games, puzzles, videos, and books to support student learning in core subject areas (Age
of Learning, Inc., 2023). While the world of online educational tools was endless, educators did
not have the time, resources, or experiences to utilize these tools to meet the face-to-face
expectations of previous lessons.
In December 2019, prior to the COVID-19 shut-down, Zoom video platform hosted ten
million people a day (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 20). In March 2020, two hundred million people
utilized Zoom per day (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 20). Merlo et al. (2021, p. 2) states that academic and
social activities transitioned quickly from in person to remote by utilizing such tools as Zoom. Of
households within the U.S, 15% lacked high speed internet needed for remote learning, while
District of Columbia specifically indicated 55% of households lacked high speed internet
(Kamenetz, 2022, p. 23). Bad internet, old computers, or not enough computers were also
reported as concerns regarding remote learning that transpired during the lockdowns of the
pandemic (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 147).
32

The independent research organization, RAND, surveyed teachers in the spring of 2020
only to find that 88% of teachers indicated they had not covered the amount of material they
usually would have at that point in the school year (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 21). Because of these
struggles, when students finally returned to in-person learning, many students were scoring over
a year behind grade level expectations according to standardized testing (Hedrick, 2021).
Quarantines increased as students entered the 2021 school year. Extended and frequent
quarantines caused students to miss many days of instruction or forced them to have remote
instruction. Some students just dropped out for good (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 330).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees a free and appropriate
public education for all students. This refers to, where appropriate and possible, attending regular
schools, in regular classrooms, with their peers (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 112). This will be a
controversial topic for years to come as more research and data is collected or published. All
professionals in education questioned whether students were provided a free and appropriate
education in this time of crisis. Specific concerns may center around special education students
and upholding the legal documents of IEPs for children during such times.
Use of Technology Instruction and Intervention
Educational intervention utilized as a supplement to children’s education can look quite
different for students and their needs. However, there is one common goal to implement
intervention practices: to enhance the students’ skills and abilities through various learning
modes. The sooner students receive interventions, the sooner they can start to perform at their
appropriate grade level and/or with their peers (Del Mar, 2023). When students obtain
individualized instruction and intervention, they may progress at a faster pace. Interventions
within a school setting may include push-in, pull out, flexible/digital, individualized instruction,
33

digital assignments, peer tutoring, word study, fluency practice, vocabulary growth, building
comprehension, and incorporating visual aids (Del Mar, 2023). This specific study combines
individualized instruction with digital components to perform an intervention through IXL
Learning.
Figure 2.1
Technology Instruction Benefit for Students

Note. Current research indicates various benefits to using instructional technology in lessons
with students, specifically primary grade level students. This researcher-created graphic compiles
five different benefit areas, promoting instructional technology within the classroom based on
current research.

34

While various research indicates a variety of positive results from instructional
technology like IXL Learning, negative results appear as well. Negative effects of instructional
technology found in research can affect students’ overall health. Increased anxiety, also known
as technostress (Cherney, 2016), within an e-learning program predominantly in females
(Aldridge, 2021, p. 51), an increase in depression, and struggles with social interactions (Western
Governors University, 2019) are some of the negative effects of instructional technology use.
Attention spans, bullying, and lack of privacy are also rising effects on young children and
teenagers (Western Governors University, 2019). Even a child’s physical health can be factored
into the usage of instructional technology, as many students may have an increased obesity rating
due to lack of movement and activity (Western Governors University, 2019) while they engage
in increased screen time.
The list of positive effects of instructional technology outweighs the list of negative
effects. Students may have their own tailored success stories, as instructional technology allows
for creativity in instruction. Positive effects found in research regarding usage of instructional
technology include using technology as a classroom tool, assisting in the preparation of future
technological careers, improving multitasking skills, improving visual-spatial development, and
improving problem-solving/decision making (Western Governors University, 2019). Figure 2.1
addresses a variety of instructional technology benefits for students. If research is indicating
benefits from the use of educational instructional technology, why not try it as an intervention?
IXL Learning has the setup design to be implemented as an intervention.
What Is IXL Learning?
IXL Learning is a “membership-based” (Liu & Wu, 2021, p. 246) online platform used in
education specifically to target skills in math, language arts, science, social studies, and Spanish.
35

IXL Learning is currently used in preschool to grade twelve, totaling over eleven million
students utilizing the individualized tool. IXL Learning allows students to work at their ability
level and desired pacing (Hedrick, 2021). A total of 190 different counties are logging on to IXL
Learning (Liu & Wu, 2021, p. 246), while the program specifically presents eighty-four different
place value skills across all grade levels. Figure 2.2 outlines the sixteen subcategories of place
value skills that are presented at the second-grade level within IXL Learning focused on in this
study. As Figure 2.2 presents a screenshot of the place value skill subcategories, the scope and
sequence of IXL Learning’s progression can be reviewed, as it strategically scaffolds skills to
build upon them throughout this specific section of IXL Learning.
Figure 2.2
16 Subcategories of Place Value within IXL Learning- Grade 2

Note. IXL Learning offers 38 different mathematical categories at the second-grade level. Figure
2.2 identifies the Place Value subcategory skills that IXL Learning offers (IXL Learning, 2023).
IXL Learning provides personalized instruction through four components: comprehensive
curriculum, personalized guidance, actionable analytics, and real-time diagnostics (IXL

36

Learning, 2023), illustrated in Figure 2.3. These components support effective components in
conducting a successful and efficient, online platform-based intervention program.
Figure 2.3
Four Components of IXL Learning Personalized Instruction (IXL Learning, 2023)

Note. IXL Learning provides four components for personalized instruction that suggests it is an
effective and appropriate interventional tool for struggling learners. Comprehensive Curriculum,
Real-Time Diagnostics, Personalized Guidance, and Actionable Analytics are the four supporting
components of IXL Learning (IXL Learning, 2023).
What Is Research Saying About IXL Learning?
While IXL Learning poses dozens of testimonies from educators and their experiences
using IXL Learning on their website, the site lacks independent research regarding IXL Learning
used as an intervention in primary grades. Scarce evidence presents IXL Learning as an effective
or ineffective intervention practice when utilized alone. However, IXL Learning does present
37

explanations for incorrect answers, tailored question difficulty and a plethora of skills offered,
making it an ideal intervention tool.
Current research trends demonstrate successful learning gains in math and reading with
the use of IXL Learning (Cision US Inc, 2020). For example, Triplet identified a student who
returned to school from the COVID-19 shutdown reading at a second-grade level as the student
entered fourth grade due to gaps in education hindered by the pandemic (Hedrick, 2021). IXL
Learning was utilized to remediate and assist the child to grade level work. Not only are the
learning gains increasing with the use of IXL Learning, but standardized testing scores and
classroom performance within the United States are as well (Hedrick, 2021).
Research studies have compared the use of IXL Learning in various settings, age groups,
and instructional practices. A specific study indicated an IXL Learning group outperformed a
control group within a small group of fifth grade students, while another study revealed that one
practice of instruction was not more beneficial than the other (Liu & Wu, 2021, p. 246).
Electronic IXL Learning practice or traditional paper and pencil practice indicate similar
performances. Because of the nature of IXL Learning and the ease of data collection, educators
have been able to identify and remediate struggling students, especially during the pandemic
(Hedrick, 2021) and post-pandemic. The reports utilized within IXL Learning allow educators to
compare data with those of the individual student, class, grade, state, local, and class norms to
drive their instruction and intervention practices.
What is Research Saying About Mathematical Instructional Practices?
When it comes to successful mathematical instructional practices, a variety of sequences,
tips, theories, and standards can be found. As this study focuses on the electronic resources
available to educators, Walkowiak recommends electronic resources be used for understanding
38

the progressions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (Walkowiak, 2016, p.
454) that the district of study follows. Not only is it recommended, but it is becoming a common
and customary practice within all types of classrooms for educators to utilize the technology
available to them as they teach the standards, mathematical standards, and electronic resources.
As far as students with disabilities or at-risk, technology mediated interventions offer a range of
mathematical skills and concepts (Bouck & Long, 2023, p. 2) that can be tailored to meet the
needs of any learner, appealing to all educators managing their time.
Figure 2.4
2nd Grade Place Value PA Common Core Standards

39

Note. PA Common Core Standards includes more standards than Figure 2.4 presents. However,
the listed standards focus on place value skills, mirroring IXL Learning’s intervention program
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2013).
As Figure 2.4 identifies the Pennsylvania Common Core Mathematical Standards,
educators comprehend that reading, writing, skip counting, identifying amounts, comparing
numbers, and understanding operational properties to add/subtract are the targeted skills for
second grade. As these standards cover a lot of content, educators must be strategic in their
presentation and sequencing of skills to build foundational place value skills and prepare
students for future mathematical skills.
Another mathematical instructional strategy is Explicit Instruction (EI). Explicit
Instruction (EI) is a popular educational approach that focuses on evidenced based practices,
specifically for students with disabilities (Bouck et al., 2022, p. 1). EI consists of key
components including breaking tasks into smaller chunks, modeling problem solving, using-andfading-prompts, and providing feedback or opportunity for practice (Bouch et al, 2022, p. 1).
Educators have successfully taught strategies to problem solve utilizing EI. As research lacks
studies of implementing EI through an online platform, research supports the use of EI in a faceto-face setting for mathematical practices (Bouch et at., 2022, p. 1).
A strategy implemented in a generous portion of primary mathematics curricula is
mathematical manipulatives: items students may touch, hold, move, and stack to comprehend
abstract mathematical concepts. Manipulative mathematical items offer visual and tactile
experiences for students that electronic tools may not permit. While research indicates positive
results for utilizing manipulatives within the classroom, providing hands-on activities has shown
mixed results by noting that they may hinder learning in specific settings (Vassar, 2017). For
40

students with specific disabilities like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD),
manipulatives may become distracting while working on mathematical concepts rather than
being a useful tool for typical students. The use of manipulatives remains popular and strong
while conflicting opinions say manipulatives lose their value after the first year of school
(Vassar, 2017).
Current conflicting research identifies other factors that may help or hinder mathematical
instructional practices. For example, research focuses on the connection between phonological or
reading abilities and mathematical success, along with how long-term memory, working
memory, memory capacity and schemas will affect mathematical skills and abilities (Vassar,
2017). Not only will these concepts categorize information but also will determine how specific
mathematical information will be used or applied (Vassar, 2017). Figure 2.5 outlines eight
mathematical practices supporting educators in their instruction. Some educators might refer to
these as the “heart and soul” of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, as they
inspire to develop all their students’ mathematical skills and thinking (Rutherford, 2015). These
practices are targeted at assisting students to develop a “deep, flexible, and enduring”
understanding of mathematics (Rutherford, 2015).
Figure 2.5
The Standards for Mathematical Practices

41

Note. The Standard Mathematical Practices contains eight components of mathematics suggested
to educators to engage students in their mathematical maturity. These practices are implemented
through instruction, curriculum design, interventions, and strategic skill instruction. (Solution
Tree Press, 2012)
Figure 2.5 illustrates specific mathematical practices for educators to guide and promote
engaging, high-level tasks within their lessons. Within these practices, educators are supported
with eight practices that could be applied to any or all mathematical skills. These practices allow
educators to dive into all components of place value skills in a variety of presentation models or
activities and identify the role of the student and teacher within each practice. As the Solution
Tree Press’ Mathematical Practices (2012) presents tools promoting mathematical success, it
42

does not identify interventional practices that may assist in closing the educational deficits
presented post-COVID-19 pandemic.
Worked examples and workbooks are other strategies present in mathematical instruction
and intervention, specifically of place value. This topic has been widely researched and
historically implemented. Worked examples may provide students with efficient acquisition time
as they take less time to study presented material (Vassar, 2017), where students discuss the stepby-step process needed to appropriately solve a problem. While worked examples provide
support and structure, workbooks provide extra practice and the opportunity to demonstrate
independence or mastery of the skills taught. Both strategies can be implemented through whole
group instruction, small group instruction, and/or individual intervention practices.
Objectives and Purpose
The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the interactive online
learning platform of IXL Learning as an intervention for second-grade students who have been
identified as performing below grade level in mathematics according to the Savvas EnVision 2 nd
Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A. The goal of any educational intervention is to ensure
student success and mastery of expected grade level skills, especially for students that have been
identified as performing below grade level or who need remediation. Building knowledge of
intervention practices and improving decision-making outcomes for educators regarding
implementing technology interventions are the intended benefits of this research. Because the
educational effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are surfacing, determining research-based
practices to improve educational interventions at the primary level is the direct goal of this study,
specifically for the district in the area of place value skills.

43

IXL Learning states that their "engaging, empowering, and effective personalized
learning experience" focuses on four components in intervention: comprehensive curriculum,
real-time diagnostic assessments, actionable analytics, and personalized guidance (Bashkov et
al., 2021), as shown in Figure 2.3. These four components of IXL Learning’s intervention could
act as an appropriate intervention for possible COVID-19 learning gaps. By conducting this
study, insights are sought out as to the effectiveness of this computer-adapted intervention in
remediating students’ mathematical skills and to promote success for all second-grade students in
need of remediation.
The purpose of this study is to analyze data from a representative sample of learners to
determine the effectiveness of IXL Learning as an intervention platform and whether or not the
district should continue to use this program for mathematics interventions in future practices.
IXL Learning has been proven to be an effective tool for providing supplemental mathematics
instructions to all levels of learners. This study is unique in that it aims to study the effects of this
online interactive program as an intervention tool for a specific population of learners- post
COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 2.6
Research Question
Research Question

How does an interactive online learning platform affect the place value
abilities of second-grade students at-risk in the area of mathematics as
measured by curriculum-based assessments outside of the IXL Learning
platform?

44

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic
A wide variety of effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on youth are surfacing as research
is conducted and collected. In Kamenetz’s text, The Stolen Year, it quotes pediatric infectious
disease specialists in the New York Times from March 2021 regarding the impact of COVID-19
on children: “Food insecurity. Socialization. Depression. Isolation…Children are suffering
academically, emotionally, socially, and physically…The long-term consequences may not be
fully realized for years…We are going to have a lost generation- a set of children who will fall
behind educationally, with deficits that could affect their entire life course” (2022, p. 8). The
New York Times published that students suffered, losing ground in reading, math, and other
subjects (Leonhardt, 2023). Educators must prepare and estimate the time frame needed to fix
these academic, emotional, social, and physical long-term consequences of the pandemic.
The mental health of many children was impacted by the events of the pandemic. The
Journal of Health, Politics and Law states that anxiety and depression affects social,
occupational, educational performance, and political participation; therefore, it affects
individuals' successful navigation of their personal, professional, and political life (Stances &
Campbell, 2021, p. 826). The American Academy of Pediatrics declared children’s mental health
a national emergency while the COVID shutdown was considered a “moral catastrophe” for
children (Leonhardt, 2023). In one survey, Kamenetz identifies that nearly half of mothers of
remote learning students indicate a mental health decline in their children (2022, p. 201).
COVID-19 has affected the mental health of many children. However, the extent is to be
determined as research continues to transpire.
Across the United States, 14% of students are classified as qualifying for special
education services (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 111). In May 2020, only 20% of parents reported their
45

children were receiving special education services they were entitled to during the pandemic,
while 39% reported their child was not receiving any services they needed (Kamenetz, 2020, p.
114). Special education services were interrupted, leading to inconsistent intervention, support,
services, and growth for many students. During the initial shut-down, the district of study was
instructed not to engage in remote learning initially due to determining how they would meet the
needs of all special education learners and follow all legal documents (504 plans and IEPs).
Considering legal repercussions was a priority before making a remote learning plan for special
education students or students receiving educational/behavioral support.
The residential and financial status of families during the pandemic became unstable for
many students. One in ten students in New York City experienced housing insecurities while
three fourths of students qualified for free and reduced lunches based on family income
(Kamenetz, 2022, p. 26) during the duration of the pandemic. A quarter of students within the
United States live in a single parent home (Kamenetz, 2022, p. 186) and to assist with the
financial needs of the district, “friendship bags'' were provided to students in need each Friday of
the year, or the last day of the school week before long weekends. These bags were full of prepackaged donated and purchased canned goods to confirm students had food over the long
weekends. The school nurse reported a decrease in stomach complaints on Monday mornings
since the implementation of the friendship bags. In March 2023, 52% of students within the
district’s elementary school qualified for free or reduced lunches: 216 free lunches and 9 reduced
lunches.
While many parents tried their best to assist in remote education, other students struggled
due to the decreased opportunity to succeed. Sanz Ponce et al. acknowledges that students during
the initial shutdown were forgotten, excluded, or invisible to an educational influence within
46

their home, leading to a decreased opportunity to learn, a decreased acquisition of learning,
decreased acquisition of life skills, and an emotional disengagement to schooling (2022).
Because of the pandemic and increased isolation, many students were not prepared mentally and
socially to return to in-person courses (Jackaria, 2022, p. 221). The lack of attention and
opportunity presents itself as students struggle with foundational and independent skills within
the elementary school setting of the district. Poor or inadequate internet, lack of technology in
the house, limited parental support/supervision, childcare conflicts, and home environments were
just some of the hardships presented during the pandemic that prevented academic success for
students. Lack of interest to assist students at home, parental digital illiteracy, decline in
educational investment, usage of less stimulating educational materials, decline in family
learning experiences outside of school, varying parenting styles, lack of emotional support from
teachers, or difficulty of supervision of at-risk students are all reasons identified for struggling
students post pandemic (Sanz Ponce et al., 2020).
In the Philippines study of teacher interviews, all teachers indicated an increase of “nonreaders' ' upon returning to in-person classes after the pandemic. This resulted in teachers
sectioning off their classes as “readers'' and “nonreaders” (Jackaria, 2022, p. 221). One teacher
admits that “reading is declining” (Jackaria, 2022, p. 221). This is evident in the small district of
study, where 76% of students who entered second grade in the fall of 2023 could not read at
grade level at the start of the year, as measured by the Renaissance STAR Reading Assessment.
During and post-pandemic, librarians worked hard to create a robust e-book catalog available to
students so they could continue to build upon their reading skills from any location (Zirogiannis,
2021, p. 46), along with utilizing all online curriculum subscriptions to promote reading for
primary students. They also conducted push-in courses, introduced students to applications and
47

set up accounts for students to access the county library’s resources to assist their skillsets
(Zirogiannis, 2021, p. 46). Research and the district’s data indicate that this might not have been
enough for struggling students through the unique remote learning setting, creating fewer readers
and increasing educational deficits.
Not only were students’ academic success in jeopardy, their mental and physical health
were affected, too. The Educator’s Room explains how extended and prolonged stress can cause
parts of the brain to mature at a faster rate. Adversity, life experiences, and prolonged stress play
into these changes within the brain, specifically the hippocampus and amygdala (Odom, 2023).
The events of COVID-19 put stress on many young students and adults all around the world.
Dimitri Christakis, the editor in chief of the Pediatrics Journal of the American Medical
Association, presented evidence that COVID-19 was not dangerous to children, but the lack of
in-person schooling was failing students in three ways: failing to contain the pandemic, closing
the schools summarily and abruptly without a distance learning plan or infrastructure, and not
immediately planning a reopening procedure (Kamenetz, 2020, p. 232). Current research and
assessment data supports Christakis’ journal article.
These effects present various reasons why students may not be performing at grade level
expectations post-pandemic. Educators must prepare interventions that have the data and rigor to
assist in closing the educational gaps students are presenting. IXL Learning can possibly be
utilized as a mathematical intervention to improve primary students’ mathematical skills,
assisting in closing some educational deficits.
National Performance Levels
National performance levels indicate a slight decrease at the fourth-grade assessment
level in 2022 as compared to 2019. Figure 2.7 demonstrates a twenty-three-point increase in
48

average scores since 1990 with a five-point decrease since 2019 (The Nation’s Report Card,
2022). Although this data is focusing on fourth-grade curriculums, research has indicated all
grade levels have been impacted.
Figure 2.7
Trend in Fourth-grade Mathematics Average Scores 2022

Note. As the graph demonstrates, fourth grade mathematics average scores increased, leveled
out, and then began a slight decrease. If generalized across grade levels, this data supports
student mathematical score declines within second grade. (The Nation’s Report Card, 2022)
While comparing pre-COVID-19 data (2019) to 2022 at the fourth-grade level by state,
zero states report an increase in state average mathematics scores, ten report no meaningful
change in their mathematics score, while forty-three report a mathematics score decrease, as
illustrated in Figure 2.8 (The Nation’s Report Card, 2022). This data indicates a national need for
better mathematical practices and a drive for improving standardized assessment scores at all
grade levels across multiple states.
Figure 2.8
Score Increase or Decrease By State In 2022 NAEP Mathematics

49

Note. Figure 2.8 identifies the states increasing or decreasing in mathematical scores.
Pennsylvania is the light gray color, indicating a decrease in score between 2019 and 2022. (The
Nation’s Report Card, 2022)
Summary
Despite the causation of such place value skill deficits, educational gaps are being
presented in current research. Chapter 2 summarizes the research centering around what is
happening world-wide in place value instructional practices, interventional tools, place value
concepts, and many educational effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 3 will explain in
detail the components of this specific study, including the schedule, participant criteria, ethical
practices, and parent or administration permission necessary to conduct the research.

50

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction
Not only has research and current observations within the district of study demonstrated a
need for educational interventions, but it has identified declines in educational performances
across the nation after the global COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter centers around the structure
of the study conducted in a small public school in Western Pennsylvania. The research of this
study aims at identifying how an interactive online learning platform affects the place value
abilities of second-grade students at-risk in the area of mathematics. Using various data
collection techniques and curriculum-based assessments outside of the IXL Learning platform
will assist educators in identifying effective and efficient interventions at the conclusion of the
study.
Research Design
This quantitative, criterion-changing, single subject, correlational study allowed the
researcher to use the students’ progress to compare IXL Learning data, weekly researchercreated, curriculum-based assessment data, and the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment
data. The researcher examined the correlation between IXL Learning used as an intervention at
the second-grade level, specifically with place value skills. The rationale for selecting such study
was the abundant research found in utilization of IXL Learning and the availability of materials
implemented in such study. The district of study had purchased IXL Learning subscriptions for
consecutive years, along with a Savvas EnVision purchase agreement for a total of six
consecutive school years. If correlations between data can produce findings regarding

51

intervention procedures, interactive/online programs, and teaching practices, educators can
support student learning accordingly.
Criterion-Changing, Single-Case, Quantitative Design
With changing-criterion design, effects of the intervention are demonstrated by gradual
performance changes over the intervention phase (Kazdin, 2011, p. 167). When the performance
matches the criterion, the new criterion is shifted, graphically demonstrating a step-like function
in performance within the subphases (Kazdin, 2011, p. 168). Because student progress within
this study focuses on one mathematical skill for the participants, the criterion gradually increases
for each criterion change, making it a single subject criterion-changing design study. As this
occurred in a public school, it was important to select a design that did not have a need for
suspension or withdrawing the intervention to demonstrate the relationship between the behavior
and intervention (Kazdin, 2011, p. 168). Once a student has been identified in need of an
intervention, it would be unethical to remove the interventional practices. Because the criterionchanging study design pushes the participant to the next criterion level, the intervention
continues, and unethical concerns can be eliminated. The relationship between the behavior and
the intervention can be demonstrated without removing or withdrawing the intervention in this
case study design.
Action Plan: Intervention
During the first six weeks of the 2023-2024 second-grade school year, participants
completed a criterion changing, single case, quantitative study. During the study, participants
attempted to work through the sixteen different components of place value subcategories of IXL
Learning at the second-grade level. The intervention took place in the researcher’s classroom for
a thirty-minute enrichment period where all students in the grade implemented skill interventions
52

and remediation at their instructional level. Even though all students did not have the researcher
as their homeroom second-grade teacher, students of similar skill ability attended the
researcher’s enrichment time frame class, as the rest of the grade participated in remedial
practices. Participants completed the intervention utilizing IXL Learning on their school issued
Chromebook. Because the district had implemented IXL Learning in the past, students were
already familiar with the layout of the interactive online platform and the subscription was
already purchased by the district for district-wide practices.
For a student to move on to the next subcategory of the study, their SmartScore (defined
later in Chapter 3) must have landed between 80 and 100 for the day, demonstrating proficiency.
The phases of the study changed based on performance at each subcategory. Once students met
the proficient score, they moved on to the next subcategory. Students who did not complete the
sixteen subcategories of place value continued intervention practices post intervention study,
demonstrating regular second-grade remediation practices throughout the grade level. Students
who met proficiency of the sixteen subcategories and/or scored 100% on the weekly assessment
for three consecutive weeks would be exited from the study.
Setting Of Study-Demographics of School District
The participating school district is a small public school located in Pennsylvania,
consisting of one high school building and one elementary building. According to Future Ready,
98.6% of the district consists of white students (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2023). Of the
students attending the district, 97.1% are considered economically disadvantaged
(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2023). In August of 2023, the district high school had 363
high school students. Of those students, 44 were receiving special education services. At the
elementary school, of the 418 enrolled students, 60 were receiving special education services.
53

The National Center for Education Statistics identifies a population of 7,926 with a
median household income of $54,545 in the surrounding community (2023). The total number of
households in the district is 3,108 with 82.1% maintaining Broadband Internet (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2023). Due to the size, interest, and funding of specific programs within
the district, this district merges with the neighboring district for specialty clubs, sports, and
coursework.
Participants
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, reports of student learning have shown dramatic
decreases in students’ overall performance and, in particular, the learning of young learners who
did not have access to early education such as Pre-K and Kindergarten, where many foundational
skills are taught. As a result, the first-grade teachers and administrators within the district
identified a large group of young learners who were already performing well below grade level
after disruptions to their early childhood education or the reduction in access to early childhood
education during their first-grade academic year. Based on district-wide benchmarking data, a
generous portion of the first-grade students were identified as performing at "basic or below
basic" categories in reading at the end of the first-grade year and start of second grade, as
measured by Renaissance STAR assessments. In mathematics, Fastbridge (Illuminate Education,
2023) data collected the first week of the second-grade year from the participating district
indicated that 30% of the second-grade students scored within the 0-19.99 percentile, 10%
scored within the 20-29.99 percentile, 56% scored within the 30-84.99 percentile, and 5% scored
above the 85 percentiles. More specifically, of the 66 students assessed, eleven students scored at
the “high risk” category in mathematics and twenty-one students at the “some risk” category.
Thirty-two students demonstrated a degree of risk in mathematics, calculating to 48% of the
54

grade level requiring some form of intervention. To help address this need, the district provided
special educators with autonomy in selecting remedial intervention programs, English Language
Arts Pilot programs, interventions programs like Fundations, Reflex Math, IXL Learning, a
“What I Need” (WIN) period, and extra Title intervention scheduling to help address the needs
of the most at-risk students. A second-grade level aide was assigned as applicable to assist
students with 504 plans and IEPs when possible and/or classroom instruction for struggling
learners. This meant support during the general education lesson, individual tutoring, test
assistance, small group work, and sight word flash card practice would be provided in addition to
daily core content. Participants for this study were selected from the rising second-grade class
within the district. Students identified, via the Savvas EnVision Mathematics Diagnostic
Assessment Form A, as being “significantly at-risk” began the 2023-2024 academic year in a
remedial setting and were provided remedial instruction via the IXL Learning Mathematics
platform. All students in this group, regardless of whether they and their parents/guardians chose
to participate in the study, still participated in IXL Learning interventions. Utilizing IXL
Learning is a standard second-grade practice, as it was projected to assist in closing some
COVID-19 learning gaps and to promote enrichment.
All participants within the single case, changing criterion study were first-grade students
in the spring of 2023 at a rural, public school in western Pennsylvania, who entered second grade
in the fall of 2024. Students who scored less than 80% within the Numbers and Place Value
category of the 2nd Grade Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment Form A were considered for
the study. Those who were already receiving special education services and/or who were
identified as requiring special education services during the study’s preparation and duration
were excluded from the data. Special education plans incorporate other intervention practices
55

that would sway data of this specific study. A total of 27 students were invited to participate in
the study. Twelve total forms were returned. Eleven students returned parental permission forms,
qualifying, and permitting their participation in the study. One parent declined participation. One
student refused to participate on the initial start date, while another student refused to complete
the weekly assessment on day nine of the study, therefore, excluded from the study. Fifteen
qualifying students opted out of the study and/or did not return the permission paperwork. The
population of students that the researcher wanted to draw conclusions about were the secondgrade students of the 2023-2024 school year. The stratified sampling of the study includes
students who meet all requirements, qualified for a need in place value remediation, and obtained
parental permission for participation. These specific students were needed for this project
because they experienced the educational concerns of COVID-19 and demonstrated the need for
remediation. With the results of this study, educators can be more aware of utilizing IXL
Learning as an intervention for primary students experiencing learning gaps from COVID-19 or
other causations.
To prevent any new learning at the second-grade level that would sway data points, the
study took place the first six-weeks of the new school year and ended in the first week of
October 2023. This allowed for the study to be completed before a district wide “fall break” and
before any place value instruction was conducted within the second-grade curriculum.
Participation Selection Criteria
1.

Participants must be enrolled as a second-grade student within the district at the start of
the 2023-2024 academic year, and

2.

Participants must also need “Urgent Intervention” as identified by the Savvas Realize
EnVision 2nd Grade Mathematics Diagnostic Assessment Form A completed as a first56

grade student in May 2023 and therefore obtaining remedial assistance during the 20232024 academic year.
Participant Exclusion Criteria
1. Any second-grade student who was not enrolled in the district in the spring of 2023 and
therefore, did not receive the Savvas Realize EnVision 2nd Grade Math Diagnostic
Assessment Form A as a baseline score were excluded from the study.
2. Any second-grade student scoring above the “Urgent Intervention” level on the spring
2023 Savvas Realize EnVision 2nd Grade Math Diagnostic Assessment Form A by
scoring 80% or above within the place value skill category were also excluded from the
study.
3. Any second-grade student identified as special education during the initial baseline data
collection and/or during the six-week intervention period were excluded, as other special
education services will replace the IXL Learning intervention.
4. The study also excludes any second-grade student who moves districts within the sixweek intervention period, as other interventions and programs may be implemented.
Participant Consent Steps
After results of the Savvas Realize EnVision 2nd Grade Math Diagnostic Assessment
Form A were available from May 2023, the researcher, a second-grade teacher within the
district, contacted via phone (Appendix F) the parents/guardians of the students identified in
need of urgent intervention. The researcher explained the purpose of the study and answered any
questions or concerns they had before parental verbal consent. It was explained that while their
student does not have to participate in the study, they will still receive interventions through IXL
Learning throughout the year. The researcher explained to parents that the reason they are being
57

asked if they want their student to participate in the study is so their child’s results can be
included in the study and shared, confidentially, through publications and presentations.
If the parents/guardians agreed to have their student participate, a consent form
(Appendix G) was sent home in a school-addressed envelope to be signed and returned prior to
the start of the 2023-2024 school year.
At the beginning of the 2023-2024 academic year, the researcher met with the secondgrade students participating in the study and explained the purpose. Students were informed that
if they did not wish to have their scores used within the study, they would still use IXL Learning
for mathematics remediation in second grade, no matter which class they are in. Due to the age
of the students, a verbal ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and checking a box indicating ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was used for
assent purposes (Appendix G).
Procedures
Recruitment occurred after the results of the initial Savvas Realize EnVision 2 nd Grade
Math Diagnostic Assessment Form A, given to all first-grade students in May 2023, were
available. The researcher, a second-grade teacher in western Pennsylvania, contacted via phone
(Appendix F) the parents/guardians of the students identified as in need of urgent intervention.
The researcher explained the purpose of the study to parents and answered any questions they
had. It was explained that while their student did not have to participate in the study, they still
would receive mathematics interventions using Reflex Math, Fastbridge, and IXL Learning, as
determined by the building administrators (principal, behavior specialist, and superintendent).
All second-grade students would still be receiving interventions through the IXL Learning
program throughout the year. The researcher explained to parents the reason their child was
being asked to participate in the study. That reasoning was so their child’s results could be
58

included in the study and shared, confidentially, through publications and presentations for future
educational practices. If the parents or guardians agreed to have their student participate, a
consent form (Appendix G) was sent home with the student in a school-addressed envelope to be
signed and returned. Parents/guardians were given the researcher’s contact information in case
any questions arose over summer break and/or participation status changed. A total of nine
students completed the six-week study after obtaining appropriate permissions.
At the beginning of the 2023-2024 academic year, the researcher met with the secondgrade students and explained the purpose of the “study” (see student assent script in lieu of the
assent form in appendices- Appendix G). Students were informed that they did not have to allow
the researcher to use their scores in the study and that, if they did not wish to have their scores
used, they would still participate in IXL Learning or other interventional practices. Due to the
age of the students, a verbal ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and checking a box indicating ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was used
for assent purposes by the researcher.
Shifting Through Criterions
The criterion change within this specific study is dependent on the students' ability to
reach a SmartScore of 80-100 in each subcategory of place value skills within IXL Learning at
the second-grade level. The SmartScore is an electronic score given to students based on their
progress in the program of IXL Learning. When students answer a question incorrectly in IXL
Learning, their SmartScore will decrease while they get instant feedback on the question,
allowing them to see the correct answer (Liu & Wu, 2021, p. 246). As the students get the
answers correct, their SmartScore increases. The targeted SmartScore is 80 to 100. Once students
reach a SmartScore of 80, they have mastered that subskill within IXL Learning or are
considered proficient in that skill area.
59

Within IXL Learning, the SmartScore indicates how well students understand the skill.
This proprietary algorithm allows students to see their progress in the skill. Students start at a
SmartScore of zero and their score increases as they answer questions correctly or decreases as
they answer incorrectly. It is calculated by the number of questions completed, the difficulty of
the question, consistency, and accuracy of the students’ achievement.
If students reached a SmartScore of 80-100, they then moved on to the next skill
subphase/subcategory. If the intervention was responsible for the change in performance, the
shift in criterion from subphase to subphase would demonstrate the change (Kazdin, 2011, p.
169). The researcher allowed students to reach their Smartscore of 100 if they so desired.
Reaching that Smartscore resulted in more electronic ribbon icons within the program illustrated
in Image 3.1. The blue ribbon indicated a SmartScore of 80 or above, while the medal indicated a
SmartScore of 100.
Image 3.1
IXL Learning Electronic Reward System Icons Example

Note. Image 3.1 illustrates the blue ribbon icon, along with the gold medal icon within IXL
Learning. These rewards indicate a SmartScore of 80 and 100, indicated by the number in
parentheses to the left of the icon. These icons allow for self-reflection within independent work
of IXL Learning. (IXL Learning, 2023)

60

At the point where students reach the 80-100 SmartScore range in this study, they would
move on to the next subcategory or criterion within the targeted skill area. This continued until
they reached mastery of all place value skills in the place value category of IXL Learning (IXL
Learning, 2023) and/or the completion of the six-week study. When utilized within regular
practices and outside of targeted research, educators can instruct students on the skill area to
work in IXL Learning to build their SmartScore. For example, English Language Arts teachers
might assign their second-grade students to work on Vowel Teams, indicated by F1 on IXL
Learning, “Choose the picture that matches the vowel team word” (IXL Learning, 2023). In
Image 3.1, the golden star to the left of the subcategory skills listed indicates the teacher as
“recommended” or assigned that skill to the student.
Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment
Once per week, each student completed a researcher-created, curriculum-based
assessment. The assessment aligned to the district's mathematics curriculum while assessing the
transferability of the skills developed in IXL Learning to the general education classroom. By
repeating the intervention with gradual criterion changes, the goal of the program was
approached gradually, in small increments (Kazdin, 2011, p.189). However, if a subcategory is
easier for the student, the duration of time spent on that subcategory would be significantly
shorter than a difficult subcategory. Some students could change criteria multiple times in one
thirty-minute session. A clear effect of the study is evident if student performance follows the
changing criterion of the intervention (Kazdin, 2011, p. 190). All cautions were taken in order to
produce close "point-by-point correspondence" between the criterion levels and student skill
performances, demonstrating whether the intervention is responsible for the changes (Kazdin,
2011, p. 191). Daily data collection occurred, including if students completed the thirty-minutes
61

of intervention, which subskill they worked on during that day, if they completed that subskill
and what their SmartScore was at the end of the session. The data collection page, previewed in
Figure 3.2, also allowed for researcher notes indicating restroom visits, student comments,
technology, or schedule restraints.
Figure 3.2
Researcher-Created Data Collection Template

Note. The graphic organizer was created by the researcher specifically for the study’s data
collection procedures. However, it could be tailored to meet the needs of a variety of
interventional practices requiring daily data collection.
Timeline and Scheduling
The Intervention Study Activity table schedule (Figure 3.3) demonstrates the weekly
schedule utilized during the six-week intervention. Because the district was in session for five

62

full weeks of school (5 school days each week) and one week with four days as Labor Day was
observed, the students remained consistent with their participation each day and week. Because
IXL Learning requires a lot of screen time, the fifth day was designed to provide students with a
break from the screen and allow them to focus on other skills that needed remediation at the
second-grade level. This was often a game, puzzle, or class activity that did not require
technology or screens and did not focus on place value skills. Games and activities used in the
study can be found in Appendix I. The intervention was initiated the last week in August and
concluded the first week of October 2023.
Students were engaged in IXL Learning on days 1, 2, and 3 of the schedule for thirtyminutes each day during the enrichment period scheduled. Students returned to the researcher’s
classroom each day for intervention practices within the study. The researcher circulated the
classroom to ensure engagement in IXL Learning practices. If a student was off task, redirection
was given, along with praise for working hard. Restroom breaks were granted, along with eating
breakfast if they picked one up on their way to the classroom. On rare occasions, students would
have technical difficulties including getting logged in, uncharged Chromebooks, or needing to be
redirected to the correct subskill, as they clicked the wrong button. These concerns were
corrected in a timely manner and were predicted while working with second-grade students. Day
4 of the study week was a researcher-created, curriculum based assessment. Day 5 of the study
included an additional second-grade mathematical activity that focused on other areas of deficit
for the participants but would not sway data collection of the study. This also provided
participants with a break from screen-time that the IXL Learning study required or screen time
that they may engage in throughout each school day or outside of the school building.
Figure 3.3
63

IXL Learning Researcher-Created Intervention Study Schedule
Day #

Intervention Study Activity

1

IXL Learning Implementation at Targeted Subcategory

2

IXL Learning Implementation at Targeted Subcategory

3

IXL Learning Implementation at Targeted Subcategory

4

Curriculum-Based Researcher-Made Assessment

5

Paper-Based Unrelated Skill Remediation

Note. The weekly schedule for this specific study includes three days of electronic work within
IXL Learning, one day of assessment, and the last day of unrelated math skill practice. The fifth
day is utilized as a break to prevent student exhaustion in the study and to discourage overuse of
screen time for the primary learners participating in the study.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection methods included:
1. Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment- The end of the first-grade school
year, Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Test assessments were utilized as baseline
data and post-intervention data to track growth of the intervention. The initial baseline
assessment took approximately thirty-minutes per student and was read aloud to all
participants, along with the four multiple choice answer options. The initial assessment
took place over two days during the month of May 2023 to eliminate disruptions to their
daily routines and instructional times.
2. Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Individual Record Form (Appendix
C)- This document was designed to record students’ correct and incorrect answers

64

according to each of the categories throughout the curriculum designed in the Savvas
program. The form indicates a quantitative score that demonstrates proficiency in each
category. The category examined during the study is the Place Value and Number Sense,
including five questions on the assessment. This documentation allowed for second-grade
educators to compare overall scores across the grade level, and to examine scores that
would be used for promoting ability grouping corresponding to individualized ability
grouping for interventions time periods.
3. IXL Learning SmartScore- Students demonstrated progress within each subcategory by
their SmartScore. A SmartScore of 80 or higher demonstrated proficiency in each
subcategory of the place value skill. The targeted criterion was a SmartScore of 80 to 100
in each subcategory skill. This data was monitored daily within the six-week study.
Students were permitted to continue working until their Smartscore reached 100 if they
desired. The minimum score of 20 was needed to move on to the next subcategory, while
100 is the maximum score possible for each subcategory. The SmartScore was utilized in
hopes of measuring student comprehension of the skill subcategory in an effective and
efficient manner.
4. IXL Learning Data- Specific skill reports, SmartScores, and data specifying number of
correct/incorrect answers were also utilized during the study. IXL Learning is the online
platform that generates these resources for educators to assist in data analysis. Scoring
accuracy is also provided while using the online platform. IXL Learning does the scoring
for the educator. IXL Learning was the main intervention component of the study.
Because IXL Learning provides remediation as needed for specific skills and was tailored
to each student’s progress, the intervention was utilized and examined. IXL Learning
65

states that their diagnostic is an accurate reading of student achievement and a strong
predictor of performance on standardized assessments including NWEA MAP, Star,
FSA, PSSA, SOL, MCAS, ILEARN, and SC READY (2023). Because IXL Learning is
grounded in research and standards aligned, it has received the Based Design Product
Certification from Digital Performance (IXL Learning, 2023). The website indicates that
schools who participate in IXL Learning may score as much as fifteen percentile points
higher in math and seventeen percentile points higher in language arts on state
assessments, indicating it is a valid and reliable instrument for this specific study (IXL
Learning, 2023). The automatic electronic data analysis was a draw to the researcher as it
provided quick, accurate, and valid data on student progress, therefore, eliminating
human error.
5. Weekly Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Assessments- The researcher-created,
curriculum-based assessments (Appendix H) became a valid tool utilized within the study
as it aligned with the second-grade Pennsylvania State Standards and focused on place
value categories that aligned with the Savvas EnVision 2 nd Grade Curriculum. Participant
scores were reliable, as they were double checked by the researcher for accuracy. The
researcher created assessments intended to track student progress as they continued
through the six-week study with IXL Learning interventions being implemented. This
tool has high validity, as it corresponds to real student scores and place value abilities.
This specific tool is a reliable tool, as it was consistent with level of performance over
multiple measurements and was created to mimic the questioning of the Savvas EnVision
2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment questioning formats. The researcher was also able to
observe student strategies utilized during the assessment, as they provided feedback in
66

the form of counting, drawing, and orally communicating which strategy they utilized
when questioned by the researcher. As the assessment was read aloud to students, the
researcher would indicate the strategy of use as the students shared or demonstrated their
thought process.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted in three stages: an analysis of the Savvas EnVision 2 nd
Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A benchmark assessment data, which was recorded on the
Individual Record Form (Appendix C), analysis of criterion-changing sixteen subcategories
achieved on IXL Learning (Figure 2.2), analysis of the weekly curriculum-based researcherconstructed assessments (Figure 4.5), and the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment
Forms A and B (Appendix A and B) utilized as the final benchmark assessment.
Data was analyzed initially to determine participant qualification and selection. Students
in first grade were grouped by ability and skill deficits for intervention periods for the 2023-2024
school year to supplement instruction with additional interventions as they entered second grade.
Once all assessments were scored, students who demonstrated a place value deficit by scoring
less than 80% in the place value category of the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment were
selected for the study. During the study, students participated in the IXL Learning intervention
sessions three days each week for thirty-minutes each day for the duration of the study. Because
repeated researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments were utilized, student absences were
recorded while no “make-up” session was planned. Students picked up right where they left off
when they returned.
Savvas EnVision Assessment Comparison - Qualitative data was collected from the
initial assessment in May 2023, Savvas EnVision 2 nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A. Of
67

the 68 students assessed in the initial assessment prior to the start of the study, the average score
was 30.89 out of 60 possible points, equating to an average score of 51.48%. This scoring
equates to “not proficient” or below second-grade levels. At the conclusion of the study, students
were given the 2nd Grade EnVision Diagnostic Assessment Form B (Appendix B) to compare to
the quantitative data results of the Form A assessment from the spring of 2023. The Individual
Record Form papers located in Appendix C, outline the number of correctly answered questions
needed to demonstrate proficiency in each category of the assessment, including place value. The
overall score of the formal assessments were compared. Is there an increase or a decrease from
the initial baseline assessment? The category scores were also compared. Is there an increase in
the place value score? Did the student score 80% or higher in the "Numbers and Place Value to
100" category?
IXL Learning Changing Criterion Comparison- Data was compared and reviewed to
determine how many subcategories within the sixteen IXL Learning place values skills (Figure
2.2) were mastered within the six-week time frame of the study. How quickly could students
work through each subcategory? How many of the sixteen subcategories could reach a
SmartScore of 80-100 within the six-week time frame? IXL Learning generated reports
indicating the students' SmartScores in each subcategory, so identification of which subcategory
needed to be completed was simple. If their SmartScore was below 80, they continued to work
on it until they reached 80-100 to demonstrate proficiency. By following the range-bound
changing criterion design, each subcategory of IXL Learning Mathematics under the place value
skill was utilized as subphases of the criterion. Therefore, the graph (Figure 3.4) holds the
baseline and sixteen subphases of IXL Learning place value skills, representing the quantitative

68

data of the length of time for each subphase. The graph demonstrates how many days it took for
each student in the subphase to reach a SmartScore of 80-100.
Figure 3.4
Criterion Changing Progression Graph for Student Data Collection

Note. The Criterion Changing Progression graph was created by the researcher to track daily
participation data within IXL Learning for each specific data.
Weekly Assessment Comparison- The six researcher-created, curriculum-based
assessments were centered around the EnVision Curriculum and focused on the place value skill.
Seven multiple choice questions focused on numbers and place values at the second-grade level
were presented to participants each week of the six-week intervention period. Scores from each
assessment demonstrated progress/lack of progress in the intervention program and progress
monitored on a line graph for publication purposes or visual inspection. The reliability or
consistency of the intervention's effects may be graphed visually when examining data and can
quickly communicate changes in means, levels, or trends within the data (Kazdin, 2011, p. 286,

69

p. 288). Again, scoring 80% demonstrated proficiency on the weekly assessments and allowed
for quantitative data collection to occur. Proficiency of 80% was selected as it is frequently
utilized during formative and summative assessments (Williams, 2018). If students scored 100%
for three consecutive weekly assessments, they were to be exited from the study, as they
demonstrated mastery of place value. According to the research question, students who had an
increased score on the researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments demonstrated a
successful intervention utilizing IXL Learning as an online educational tool. Students who
decreased their score on the researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment demonstrated that
IXL Learning was not a successful tool for improving place value skills with those specific
students at the time of the study.
Presentation of Results
A system of coding was developed to indicate the students’ progress throughout the study
without stating any personal or identifying information for their security. Students were
numbered randomly to publicly share results with stakeholders. Results were prepared to be
shared with current and future educators at the local, state, and national level as applicable.
Within this specific school district, findings of the study were prepared to be shared with
the first, second, and third-grade teachers, along with intervention specialists, administration, and
special education teachers, as needed to make educational decisions for future and best practices
within the district.
Permissions and Protection
In order to protect the students of the study, initial parental AND student consent was
obtained. The researcher was in communication with parents and guardians throughout the study
to confirm students still wished to participate or did not have questions or concerns. No physical
70

harm was presented to students during the study. All students within the district had an IXL
Learning account at the time of the study, as most educators in the building implement IXL
Learning into their Direct Instruction, remediation, or free time play options for students. All
students had access to the interventional tool of IXL Learning. All students participated in the
enrichment time frame within the daily schedule, allowing them to gain instruction and
remediation in their specific areas of deficit. Students of all genders, ethnicities, financial
demographics, age, and ability groups were assessed for study participation criteria.
Study Approval
Not only did the administration and superintendent approve of the study (Appendix E),
but the researcher submitted an Institutional Review Board application to Slippery Rock
University’s Review Board prior to the start of the study (Appendix G). This process ensures
ethical soundness of the study, university research requirements, and protection of participants,
including informed consent. Within the requirements of Slippery Rock University’s Ed.D. of
Special Education program, the researcher completed various courses centering on the research
process prior to starting the study. The researcher also completed the CITI (Collaborative
Institutional Training Initiative) Human Subjects Research training, obtaining certification in the
Students Conducting No More than Minimal Risk Research category, located in Appendix D.
Informed Consent
Prior to the formal invitation to participate, possible participants’ parents were contacted
by the researcher to discuss the purpose of the study and reasoning for the invitation via phone
calls in May 2023. The parental contact script utilized in May 2023 prior to mailing official
permission paperwork home with students is located in Appendix F.

71

Possible participants were then sent the participation paperwork (Appendix G), including
the participation permission form. Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from the
study at any time with no consequences. All participants of the study were fully informed about
the procedures and risks involved in the research project before agreeing to participate. This
includes parental consent AND student consent for this specific study. All participant
engagement was voluntary. This paperwork explains the research, the purpose, duration,
procedures, risks/discomforts, benefits, alternative procedures, confidentiality of records, and
contact information of the university, staff, and researcher.
On the first day of the study, one student indicated he did not want to participate in the
mathematics intervention, therefore, was excluded from the study. During week two, another
student declined to take the assessment and was also excluded from the study.
Bias Mitigation, Risks, and Discomforts
To mitigate researcher confirmation bias, the researcher consistently reevaluated
impressions of the participants and future readers while challenging pre-existing assumptions
and hypotheses. In the same light, social desirability bias was eliminated when the researcher
explained to participants and their parents that there will not be any consequences or rewards of
participating in the study. Utilizing IXL Learning is consistent with the interventions used in
second grade on a regular basis. The only advantage of permission was the ability to share their
progress and results with future educators. Unconditional positive regard was implemented by
explaining that there were no consequences for declining study participation in order to be
socially accepted. Cultural and gender bias were mitigated simply by including all students who
met the study participation criteria, without knowing their gender, race, economic status, or
culture.
72

Question-order bias was eliminated by implementing tools that were computer generated
or curriculum-based. While participants completed the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessments
and the researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments, students were read the questions aloud
by the researcher, but were unaided in their responses to prevent incorrect data. Because these
assessments were either computer multiple choice or paper and pencil multiple choice, leading
question and wording bias was mitigated.
Risks and Discomforts
Coercion risk may have been present for parents and guardians as they may have felt
pressured to have their student participate in the study because a second-grade teacher was
asking them to participate. The researcher let parents/guardians know that student participation,
or refusal to participate, would not determine the educational services, instruction, and/or
interventions used within the second-grade setting. All students participated in the IXL Learning
interventions at their respective levels and ability groupings. The study only asked to use student
scores for publication purposes at the conclusion of the study.
No physical risks were presented to participants. Grades or academic standing were not
affected based on participation in the study. Parents and guardians were informed that students
would not suffer any consequences should they not wish to participate or if they chose to
participate and then change their minds. Participation involved voluntarily sharing of student
data in which the students cannot be identified. No penalty or loss of benefit occurred for
declining participation of the study.
Security questions and strong passwords for all parties involved assisted in securing
confidential student records and results. Students utilized a district owned Chromebook with
their Google account username and password. Security was also protected by IXL Learning’s
73

username and password login procedures. Student data was protected on the researcher’s
personal laptop using a password and/or fingerprint identification to unlock. Student names were
replaced with numbers within the study to eliminate student identification for security and
privacy concerns.
Reliability, Validity and Limitations
Data collected from the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessments were reliable due to
the research-based curriculum distributed by Savvas. The diagnostic assessments have been
recognized by Tech & Learning, received Awards of Excellence: Best of 2021 (Savvas Learning
Company, 2023). Savvas reports their program was created with WestEd to ensure reliability and
validity (Savvas Learning Company, 2023). WestEd is a non-profit organization that is rooted in
data informed by research and equality, working at local, state, and national levels to produce
unbiased and equitable assessments (Savvas Learning Company, 2023). Because their program is
vertically aligned from Kindergarten through Algebra 2, mathematical standards can effectively
and reliably be addressed (Savvas Learning Company, 2023).
As the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic assessments make instructional recommendations for
every learner, it becomes a valid assessment, offering flexibility for progress monitoring and data
reporting (Savvas Learning Company, 2023). Student performance can be compared to grade
level expectations and national norms. The Individual Record Form from the Savvas EnVision
Curriculum indicates what the norm score should be to demonstrate proficiency in each category
(Appendix C). Because there are two forms of the diagnostic assessment, validity of the scores is
acceptable. The assessment is not intended to be given multiple times throughout the school year
to prevent familiarity of questions. Valid results were obtained on the diagnostic assessment by
allowing students to take a break or break up the 60-question assessment. Some students
74

demonstrated fatigue or loss of focus after a portion of the assessment was given due to the
extrinsic length of the measure. One student asked for a break and verbalized an overwhelmed
feeling during the assessment.
Other factors ensuring validity of research include an appropriate time scale for the study
to be conducted during the first six-weeks of a new school year, along with the most suitable
method of data collection for second-grade students the first few weeks of school. All students
had a thirty-minute time frame where they utilized interventional practices that focused on their
respective educational deficits. During this time frame, redirection, encouragement, and
prompting was needed to ensure reliability and validity of the program.
The repeated measures of the researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment allowed
students to still participate in the study if they were absent from school a day. The repeated
measures also provided a valid picture of student knowledge and skills within the place value
category. The structured atmosphere set during the first week of school supported student
engagement in the program, along with flexible seating utilizing Kore Wobble chairs (Kaplan
Early Learning Company, 2023). Students had their own device with which they were familiar
with. The researcher used proximity control to prevent students from clicking random answers or
becoming “click happy” (Heale, 2015).
Limitations
Limitations found within the study included low statistical power in a small sample size
of one school district, a lack of post-COVID research or literature in educational practices, and
disadvantages associated with educational technology practices, as suggested by The ViewSonic
Corporation (2020). Because the rural school district was studied, external validity may be
compromised when generalizing the findings from the relatively small sample to a larger
75

population in an urban setting. The ability to generalize results of this specific study is limited to
smaller populations. Research indicating similar studies in a larger school district or setting is
limited.
To eliminate the participants’ new learning opportunities, the study needed to be
conducted during the first six weeks of the second-grade year, a time constraint limitation. Some
educators may view the study as unethical by eliminating special education students. However,
to ensure students were not getting any other specific math interventions, they were excluded
from participation in this specific study. Other electronic diagnostic assessments were researched
and considered for this study, yet were unobtainable for various reasons (funding,
communication, subscription stipulations and student access). Also, because the Savvas
EnVision Diagnostic Assessments were hand-scored by the researcher, human error is possible
but was prevented with revising assessment scoring more than once.
Lastly, there were conflicting opinions on whether place value is a foundational skill or
not, causing limitations in the study. Elizabeth Bridgett (2022) recommends spending time on
arithmetic structures or number structures rather than place value in secondary schools. Looking
at the commutative and distributive laws rather than column addition would benefit students
more by exploring algebraic manipulation. Is place value a “distraction from mathematical
structures” like Bridgett suggests (2022)? According to Happy Numbers, before starting place
value instruction, students should be fluent in numeracy, addition, and subtraction up to ten
(Happy Numbers, 2023). They also state that place value skills will appear throughout grade
levels, contradicting the thought that place value is a foundational skill. This presents a limitation
to the study, as the study focused on place value.

76

One last limitation within this specific study is the knowledge of the participants’ birth
dates within the second-grade class. According to the district’s “cut off” age, are the participants
considered young for their grade? Were they held back in kindergarten or first grade? Does their
age affect their progression within interventional programming? These are all factors that were
not explored upon participant criterion selection but could sway data in a specific manner.
Summary
Chapter 3 outlines the details of this specific study, as it examines the practices
associated with implementing IXL Learning as an interventional tool. This chapter also identifies
the schedule of the study, participant selection criteria, parental communication, and the structure
of data collection and analysis. The reliability and validity of the collected data is supported
through the practices and protection of data conducted by the researcher. Data collection and
presentation in Chapter 4 will demonstrate the progression of each participant’s progress within
the study.

77

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Baseline Data
Baseline data was collected in May 2023 at the end of the first-grade year for all students
in the grade level on the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A. On the
initial assessment, from the 68 students in the grade, an average score of 30.89 out of 60 possible
points was presented, equating to an average score of 51.48%. This scoring calculates to “not
proficient” or below second-grade levels according to the Savvas EnVision Norms set by the
research-based curriculum. This data was utilized to solidify criteria for the participation in the
study, solidify which area of mathematics needed intervention, and assisted in narrowing the
selection of students who would be invited to participate in the study following the criteria. This
data was also used to group students by ability, to monitor progress, and to record data for future
district collaboration meetings.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the comparison between the May 2023 assessment of the Savvas
EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A and the October 2023 Savvas EnVision 2nd
Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form B assessment results. Three of the nine participants scored
lower in the Fall testing session compared to their Spring baseline results. Six of the nine
participants, 66.6%, increased their score from the baseline collection. The highest increase in
score was 21 points by Student #8. Students #2, #3, and #5 had the lowest increase of one point
on the assessments. Three students decreased their scores, equating to 33.3% of participants
declining in scores after the interventional time frame. Because the time frame of the study is
conducted during the first six weeks of the second-grade school year, validity of the
interventional practices is supportive of the study. New learning of the Savvas EnVision Math

78

Curriculum does not focus on instruction of place value skills within the first four units of the
curriculum, preventing alteration of study data collected. The curriculum introduces place value
in the ninth unit, skipping over explicit instruction of the tens, ones, and hundreds place values to
focus on adding the thousands place value in the instruction in the ninth unit. The curriculum
assumes students have already obtained the place value skills of the tens, ones, and hundreds
place values in units one through nine.
Figure 4.1
Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Overall Scores 2023

Note. Figure 4.1 illustrates the comparison in Savvas EnVision Diagnostic scores for each
specific participant of the study, along with the average score for all students. This visual was
researcher-created, specifically for the study.
When examining the Numbers and Place Value to 100 sections of the Savvas EnVision
2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment, educators can analyze the study’s progress and the
intervention’s effectiveness. Eight out of nine participants either maintained or increased their
score from May 2023 to October 2023 on the Numbers and Place Value to 100 sections of the
assessment. A decreased score was presented by one student after the six-week study time frame.
79

The overall participant average in the Numbers and Place Value to 100 sections increased from
2.8 to 3.3 after the six-week trial.
Figure 4.2
Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic “Numbers and Place Value to 100” Scores 2023

Note. Figure 4.2 illustrates the “Numbers and Place Value to 100” scores of each participant,
along with the overall average score within the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment. This
visual was researcher-created for this specific study.
IXL Learning Data
As students participate in IXL Learning, the online program tracks correct answers,
incorrect answers, difficulty of questions, the number of questions answered in each work
session, and the amount of time students are engaged in the skill. Figure 4.3 illustrates the
educator's progress monitoring screen through IXL Learning that shows this data. This data may
be used for various reasons for educators. Figure 4.3 shows that Student #1 was active in IXL
Learning at level 4 (L4) for twenty-two minutes. This student answered 53 out of 87 questions
incorrectly, causing the SmartScore to decrease from 51 to 47.
Figure 4.3
80

IXL Learning’s Educator Progress Monitoring Screen Example

Note. Figure 4.3 demonstrates what the instructor’s screen looks like while monitoring student
progress within IXL Learning. A plethora of data collection components can be gathered from
this electronic tool. (IXL Learning, 2023)
Figure 4.4 identifies the average number of questions each student answered in the thirtyminute time frame within the study. The mean number of questions answered each day of the
study was 30.6 questions per participant. The highest average number of questions answered by a
participant each day was 49 questions, while the least number of questions answered was 13.
Also illustrated in Figure 4.4, the total number of questions answered by all participants
throughout the duration of the study was 4,816 questions. The highest number of questions
answered by one student was by Student #5 with 882 questions, while Student #4 answered the
least number of questions with 245 answered. Students who scored over thirty questions per
session were working at a pace faster than one question per minute. Three students within the
study were working at a pace faster than one question per minute.
Figure 4.4
Total Number of Questions Encountered Per Student

81

Total Number of Questions Encountered
Student

Number of Questions Answered Total

Average Number of Questions Per Day

Student #1

620

38.7

Student #2

366

21.5

Student #3

536

28.2

Student #4

245

13

Student #5

882

49

Student #6

394

20.7

Student #7

828

48.7

Student #8

524

29

Student #9

421

28

Total Overall

4,816

30.6

Note. Figure 4.4 was created by the researcher to illustrate the total number of questions
completed by each participant in the study, along with the overall total number of questions
completed by all participants over the six-week study.
Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Data
Participants were provided a researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment of seven
questions weekly throughout the duration of the study (Appendix H). Figure 4.5 demonstrates
the average score for each week on the seven-question assessment, aligned to the Savvas
EnVision curriculum. A slight increase is evident after week two of the study. If data is
compared from initiation of the study (an average score of 3.6) and the conclusion of the study
(an average score of 4.0), it would appear the study has slightly improved students’ place value

82

skills within the study according to weekly researcher-based, curriculum-based assessments at
the second-grade level. Note, the research question of this study centers around the weekly
assessment data collection. Individual student weekly assessment data is published under each
student later in Chapter 4.
Figure 4.5
Average Scores Per Weekly Assessment

Note. The Average Scores Per Weekly Assessment graph, created by the researcher, is utilized to
demonstrate the weekly progress in researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments to assess
student mastery of place value skills.
Individual Student IXL Learning Place Value Subcategory Progression
Student #1
Student #1 participated in sixteen of the eighteen study days of IXL Learning data
collection. Data concludes that Student #1 progressed through thirteen of the criterion levels and
subcategories of IXL Learning Place Value skills. On three occasions, Student #1 mastered three
criterion levels in one thirty-minute session of the study. Data illustrates that subcategory 7 and

83

10 challenged the student, requiring three days of implementation at that criterion level. Figure
4.6.1 demonstrates the progression of Student #1’s participation in the study.
Figure 4.6.1
Student #1 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.6.2
Student #1 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

Figure 4.6.2 demonstrates Student #1’s slight growth in weekly assessment scores.
Student #1 first scored 4 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based place
value assessment. During the intervention, Student #1 scored the lowest on assessment #2 with a
84

score of 2 correct answers and the highest on assessment #5 with 6 correct answers. The
concluding assessment scores Student #1 with 5 correct answers out of seven possible. Student
#1’s average score on the weekly assessments was 4.5 or 64% accuracy. Slight growth is
measured by the increased scores of the weekly assessment for Student #1.
Student #2
Student #2 participated in sixteen of the eighteen study days of IXL Learning data
collection. Data concludes that Student #2 progressed through nine of the criterion levels and
subcategories of IXL Learning Place Value skills. On two occasions, Student #2 mastered three
criterion levels in one thirty-minute session of the study. Data illustrates that subcategory 2
challenged the student the most, requiring nine days of implementation at that criterion level.
Also illustrated is the participant remaining at criterion level 9 for four consecutive study dates.
Figure 4.7.1 demonstrates the progression of Student #2’s participation in the study. On five days
within the study, Student #2 worked through more than one criterion level. Two of the days that
Student #2 was engaged in more than one criterion level, the student mastered three
subcategories in one thirty-minute session.
Figure 4.7.1
Student #2 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

85

Figure 4.7.2
Student #2 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

Figure 4.7.2 demonstrates Student #2’s stagnant growth in weekly assessment scores.
Student #2 first scored 7 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based place
value assessment. At this point, the researcher decided that a student would be discharged from
the study if the participant scored 100% accuracy across three consecutive weekly assessments
despite his or her progress in IXL Learning or the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic
Assessment scores. During the intervention, Student #2 scored the lowest on assessment #2 with
a score of 2 correct answers and the highest on assessment #1 with 7 correct answers. The

86

concluding assessment scores Student #2 with 4 correct answers out of seven possible. Student
#2’s average score on the weekly assessments was 4.16 or 59% accuracy.
Student #3
Student #3 participated in all eighteen study days of IXL Learning data collection. Data
concludes that Student #3 progressed through four of the criterion levels and subcategories of
IXL Learning Place Value skills. On one occasion, Student #3 mastered three criterion levels in
one thirty-minute session of the study. Data illustrates that subcategory 4 challenged the student,
requiring fifteen days of implementation at that criterion level. Figure 4.8.1 demonstrates the
progression of Student #3’s participation in the study.
Figure 4.8.1
Student #3 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.8.2
Student #3 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

87

Figure 4.8.2 demonstrates Student #3’s inconsistent growth in weekly assessment scores.
Student #3 first scored 1 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based place
value assessment. During the intervention, Student #3 scored the lowest on assessment #1 with a
score of 1 correct answer and the highest on assessment #4 with 6 correct answers. The
concluding assessment scores Student #3 with 2 correct answers out of seven possible. Student
#3’s average score on the weekly assessments was 3.6 or 52% accuracy. Student #3 indicates an
increase in scores for the initial four weeks of the study, followed by a decline in scores during
the last two weeks of the study.
Student #4
Student #4 participated in all eighteen study days of IXL Learning data collection. Data
concludes that Student #4 progressed through four of the criterion levels and subcategories of
IXL Learning Place Value skills. On three occasions, Student #4 mastered two criterion levels in
one thirty-minute session of the study. Data illustrates that subcategory 4 challenged the student,
requiring nine days of implementation at that criterion level. Data also indicates criterion level 3
presenting a concern for Student #4, requiring 7 days of practice at the criterion level. Figure
4.9.1 demonstrates the progression of Student #4’s participation in the study.

88

Figure 4.9.1
Student #4 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.9.2
Student #4 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

Figure 4.9.2 demonstrates Student #4’s inconsistent performance in weekly assessment
scores. Student #4 first scored 3 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based
place value assessment. During the intervention, Student #4 scored the lowest on assessment #5
with a score of 1 correct answer and the highest on assessment #4 with 5 correct answers. The

89

concluding assessment scores Student #4 with 3 correct answers out of seven possible. Student
#4’s average score on the weekly assessments was 2.8 or 40% accuracy.
Student #5
Student #5 participated in all eighteen study days of IXL Learning data collection. Data
concludes that Student #5 progressed through two of the criterion levels and subcategories of
IXL Learning Place Value skills. On one occasion, Student #5 mastered two criterion levels in
one thirty-minute session of the study. Data illustrates that subcategory 2 challenged the student,
requiring seventeen days of implementation at that criterion level. Figure 4.10.1 demonstrates the
progression of Student #5’s participation in the study. Student #5’s stagnant data is analyzed
further in Chapter 5.
Figure 4.10.1
Student #5 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.10.2
Student #5 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

90

Figure 4.10.2 demonstrates Student #5’s slight growth in weekly assessment scores.
Student #5 first scored 3 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based place
value assessment. During the intervention, Student #5 scored the lowest on assessments #1, #3,
and #4 with a score of 3 correct answers and the highest on assessment #5 with 6 correct
answers. The concluding assessment scores Student #5 with 4 correct answers out of seven
possible. Student #5’s average score on the weekly assessments was 3.8 or 54% accuracy. Figure
4.10.2 illustrates a slight growth in Student #5’s weekly assessment scores.
Student #6
Student #6 participated in all eighteen study days of IXL Learning data collection. Data
concludes that Student #6 progressed through four of the criterion levels and subcategories of
IXL Learning Place Value skills over the six-week study. On three occasions, Student #6
mastered two criterion levels in one thirty-minute session of the study. When data is presented in
table form like Figure 4.11.1, Student #6 started the first three weeks by mastering the first
criterion level presented. Data illustrates that subcategory 4 challenged the student, requiring
twelve days of implementation at that criterion level. Criterion levels 2 and 3 also required
multiple days of engagement from Student #6 before meeting the SmartScore of 80 or above and

91

allowing the student to move to the next criterion level. Figure 4.11.1 demonstrates the
progression of Student #6’s participation in the study.
Figure 4.11.1
Student #6 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.11.2
Student #6 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

Figure 4.11.2 demonstrates Student #6’s slight growth in weekly researcher-created,
curriculum-based assessment scores. Student #6 first scored 2 out of 7 total points on the

92

researcher-created, curriculum-based place value assessment. During the intervention, Student #6
scored the lowest on assessment #2 with a score of 1 correct answer and the highest on
assessment #4 with 4 correct answers. The concluding assessment scores Student #6 with 3
correct answers out of seven possible. Student #6’s average score on the weekly assessments was
2.5 or 35.7% accuracy. Student #6 produced the lowest accuracy percentage within the weekly
researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments of the study.
Student #7
Student #7 participated in all eighteen study days of IXL Learning data collection. Data
concludes that Student #7 progressed through six of the criterion levels and subcategories of IXL
Learning Place Value skills. On five occasions, Student #7 mastered two criterion levels in one
thirty-minute session of the study. Data illustrates that subcategory 4 challenged the student,
requiring twelve days of implementation at that criterion level. Data also indicates three days
engaged in criterion level 6 at the conclusion of the study. Figure 4.12.1 demonstrates the
progression of Student #7’s participation in the study.
Figure 4.12.1
Student #7 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

93

Figure 4.12.2
Student #7 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

Figure 4.12.2 demonstrates Student #7’s growth in weekly researcher-created,
curriculum-based assessment scores. Student #7 first scored 3 out of 7 total points on the
researcher-created, curriculum-based place value assessment. During the intervention, Student #7
scored the lowest on assessment #3 with a score of 2 correct answers and the highest on
assessment #4 with 5 correct answers. The concluding assessment scores Student #7 with 5
correct answers out of seven possible. Student #7’s average score on the weekly assessments was
3.5 or 50% accuracy. The graphed data indicates a slight growth in weekly assessment scores by
student #7 on the weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments.
Student #8
Student #8 participated in seventeen of the eighteen study days of IXL Learning data
collection. Data concludes that Student #8 progressed through eleven of the criterion levels and
subcategories of IXL Learning Place Value skills. On two occasions, Student #8 mastered three
criterion levels in one thirty-minute session of the study. On four occasions, Student 38 mastered
two criterion levels in one thirty-minute session. Data illustrates that subcategory 10 challenged
94

the student, requiring eleven days of implementation at that criterion level. Figure 4.13.1
demonstrates the progression of Student #8’s participation in the study.
Figure 4.13.1
Student #8 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.13.2
Student #8 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

Figure 4.13.2 demonstrates Student #8’s progression through the weekly assessment
scores. Student #8 first scored 5 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based

95

place value assessment. During the intervention, Student #8 scored the lowest on assessment #2
with a score of 2 correct answers and the highest on assessment #4 with 6 correct answers. The
concluding assessment scores Student #8 with 4 correct answers out of seven possible. Student
#8’s average score on the weekly assessments was 4.5 or 64% accuracy.
Student #9
Student #9 participated in fifteen of the eighteen study days of IXL Learning data
collection. Data concludes that Student #9 progressed through all sixteen of the criterion levels
and subcategories of IXL Learning Place Value skills. On one occasion, Student #9 mastered
four criterion levels in one thirty-minute session of the study. One two occasions, Student #9
mastered three criterion levels in one thirty-minute session. Data illustrates that subcategory 16
challenged the student the most, requiring five days of implementation at that criterion level.
Figure 4.14.1 demonstrates the progression of Student #9’s participation in the study.
Figure 4.14.1
Student #9 IXL Learning Criterion Changing Progression

Figure 4.14.2
Student #9 Researcher-Created, Curriculum-Based Weekly Assessment Scores

96

Figure 4.14.2 demonstrates Student #9’s slight growth in weekly assessment scores.
Student #9 first scored 5 out of 7 total points on the researcher-created, curriculum-based place
value assessment. During the intervention, Student #9 scored the lowest on assessment #2 and #3
with a score of 4 correct answers and the highest on assessment #5 and #6 with 6 correct
answers. The concluding assessment scores Student #9 with 6 correct answers out of seven
possible. Student #9’s average score on the weekly assessments was 5 or 71% accuracy. Student
#9 produced the highest accuracy percentage within the study on the weekly researcher-created,
curriculum-based assessments.
Missing Data
Missing data within the study includes school days that students were absent, causing
them to miss the thirty-minute IXL Learning session. They were excused from the study on those
days and continued within the program when they returned to school. No penalty or disruption of
the study occurred due to absenteeism. Their total number of questions were calculated based on
days present in the study. Their average number of questions per day was calculated based on
days present within the study. Absences were not calculated into the data analysis, including

97

restroom visits during the thirty-minute time frames or time spent eating breakfast during the
first half-hour of the school day.
Patterns
The flow of the consecutive criterion subcategories is pictured in Figure 4.15. Students
started at level 1 (L1) and continued through as many subcategories as they could, reaching the
80 or higher Smartscore before moving on. One pattern found within the study includes a large
number of students who quickly completed criterion 1 (L1) of IXL Learning Place Value skills
on the first day of the study. Seven students completed at least subcategory 1 (L1) on the first
day of the study. The two remaining students needed two sessions to complete subcategory 1 of
IXL Learning Place Value skills. A pattern also noticed in the progression of subcategories is the
quick movement through multiple criterion levels in one thirty-minute session. Students
maneuvered through two or even three subcategories in one session multiple times throughout
the study.
Figure 4.15
16 IXL Learning Place Value Criterion Subcategories

98

Note. Figure 4.15 illustrates the sixteen subcategories of IXL Learning, naming each category by
specific skill within place value. (IXL Learning, 2023)
Figure 4.16
Total Number of Days Spent Within Each Subcategory

99

Note. Figure 4.16 illustrates which subcategory criterion levels provided challenges to the
participants. Level 2 (L2) and level 4 (L4) appear to have had the most total number of days
spent at that level by all participants.
The second pattern identified in the study is the number of students who spent multiple
days on subcategory 4 (L4). Figure 4.16 demonstrates the number of days each student spent at
each criterion subcategory. Students spent the most time at L4; Identify a digit up to the
hundreds place. Something to note is the connection between L2 and L4. Both subcategories
took students longer to complete, while both categories work with identifying numbers with
hundreds digits- not reviewed until unit nine of the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade curriculum.
Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies found within the study include the number of days each student spent in
each criterion subcategory of IXL Learning. Some students moved quickly, while others worked
at a slower pace. Specific subcategories appeared to present a challenge to students, specifically
L2 and L4. However, no data was collected on the percentages of students who read the remedial
lessons after each incorrect answer that IXL Learning provides. This data would be valuable to
the inconsistencies in the number of days students spent at each criterion level. If students were
obtaining the remedial lesson provided, would they be able to move more quickly through the
study? Students appeared to click to the next question instead of reading the explanation for their
incorrect response.
Weekly assessment scores were also inconsistent each week for the nine participants.
Figure 4.5 demonstrates the slight growth in overall weekly assessment averages, while each
student demonstrated inconsistent growth in place value skills on the assessment from week to
week. Inconsistencies found within the assessment process included the strategies students used.
100

For example, the assessment questions frequently stated for students to skip count by ten on a
specific question, while students counted by one to find the answer. Application of place value
strategies by the participants was inconsistent and was not generalized.
Inconsistencies found within the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment comparisons
also present a limitation to the data analysis. As results indicate, student data was mixed; some
students improved scores, while others decreased scores. This inconsistency would prevent the
researcher from identifying IXL Learning as an effective tool when measured by the Savvas
EnVision Diagnostic Assessments.
Summary
Chapter 4 delves into each participant of the study’s IXL Learning subcategory
progression, number of questions exposed to within the six-week time frame, the researchercreated, curriculum-based weekly assessment results, and the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade
Diagnostic assessment data. Missing data, patterns, and inconsistencies were explained within
this chapter. As data was collected, interpretation of results began communicating findings with
fellow educators and researchers, as found in Chapter 5. Participants within the study provided
great data points for future research and educational practices for educators following the
COVID-19 global pandemic.

101

CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETING RESULTS
Introduction
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study and conclusions drawn from the data and
research presented in previous chapters. It provides a discussion of the implications of an online
learning mathematics intervention program intended for the education profession. Data analysis
indicates many benefits to IXL Learning, while also identifying some negative findings within
the participant progression throughout the subcategories of the second-grade place value skills.
Identifying productive and counterproductive practices within mathematical instruction is the
goal of this study and is outlined in Chapter 5. The chapter concludes with recommendations for
further research regarding student interventions and the implementation of online, interactive
platform interventions to improve student skill levels. The researcher also recommends specifics
necessary for successful replication of this study.
Summary of Study
As research and current local data indicates, students are lacking the place value skills
needed to prepare them for the third-grade curriculum and future learning. Research has also
indicated a decline in mathematical assessment scores. Finding an effective and efficient
intervention system is still being researched, as COVID-19 has disrupted the educational
practices found in schools. Nine students from a rural western Pennsylvania school participated
in an online interactive program of IXL Learning for three, thirty-minute sessions per week for
the first six weeks of the 2023-2024 school year. Students within this criterion-changing,
quantitative study provided valuable information for other mathematical educators and future
practices centering around second-grade place value skills instruction and intervention,
specifically IXL Learning.
102

Findings Related to The Literature
Findings relating to the literature reviewed within the study include the data supporting a
decline in mathematical scores for primary students, more specifically post-COVID-19 pandemic
educational deficits. The Institute of Education Services indicated that students with and without
disabilities struggled with mathematics (Chhin et al., 2023). This specific study supports the
educational struggle of all students, disregarding any label or diagnosis provided. Regular
education students demonstrated a struggle with place value skills within this study as indicated
by the baseline data collected from the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment from
May 2023. Students scored 51.48% accuracy on the initial assessment as a grade level, across a
variety of mathematical skills. This supports various research sources sharing the decline of
mathematical skills, specifically after the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the district did not
utilize the same assessment prior to the pandemic, this specific data could not be compared to
previous years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research indicates that specific strategies like counting-all, continuation-counting,
counting-on, sequence, sequence-separate, separate, and addition assisted in conceptual
knowledge of place value skills (Wilkinson, 2017, p. 22) can be utilized in place value
instruction or problem solving. IXL Learning included strategies like counting-all, continuationcounting, counting-on and sequencing. Within the remedial section of IXL Learning place value
questions, these specific strategies were presented to students to support their progress in the
program. The researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments also included the same
strategies, along with the comparison of numbers, as it was created to mimic the Savvas
EnVision Diagnostic assessment questions centering around place value skills. This
demonstrates that IXL Learning is supporting research-based instructional strategies regarding
103

place value skills by encouraging specific strategies within their questioning and practices.
Students are practicing the same skills on IXL Learning as they are learning within the Savvas
EnVision mathematical programming. Whether the students can generalize the skill(s) is another
story.
Gafoor & Kurukkan (2015, p. 241) indicate generalizing skills can be a challenge, along
with building upon skills that have not been mastered yet. IXL Learning set up the sixteen
subcategory skills in an appropriate sequence to promote scaffolded learning. However, students
who participated in the study had not mastered basic place value skills in subcategory L1 or L2
to progress through the other subcategories. One student mastered each of the subcategories of
IXL Learning place value skills but did not improve the weekly assessment scores, centering on
similar question wording and problem-solving. This specific student was able to demonstrate
mastery by scoring a SmartScore of 80 or above on the questions IXL Learning presented, while
the student could not demonstrate mastery of similar problems on the researcher-created,
curriculum-based assessments. This component of the study supports the research by Gafoor &
Kurukkan that generalization is a struggle for students regarding place value skills and
assessment/intervention presentation modes. This also allows the researcher to question the use
of paper and pencil diagnostic/monitoring assessments utilized with an online interactive
interventional program. Is there a disconnect between presentation modes for specific learners?
Would there have been a better outcome if the presentation and assessment modes were
consistent?
Within the research, Kong and Chan (2021) state that some students may acquire place
value skills inadvertently, prior to formal instruction on place value skills and strategies. Student
data collected within this specific study does not support this research, as students who may or
104

may not have been instructed on place value skills did not score proficiently within IXL
Learning’s criterion changing progression. Even with some instruction or remedial prompts,
students did not gain the place value skills needed to meet the SmartScore goal of 80 and above.
This is evidence that primary students need concrete instruction prior to using place value skills.
Furthermore, Wilkinson (2017) shares that students may comprehend different
components of place value skills within select problem-solving questions. Student data from this
study may support this, as their data produced inconsistent results and trends on the weekly
assessments, concluding that they do comprehend random components of place value skills. This
could also be a great explanation for the inconsistent data collection on all tools utilized within
the study, as no other patterns or causations were identified.
It is also suggested in research from Wilkinson (2017) that students learn concepts with
abstract or general principles with flexibility, but adapting those skills requires more time to
acquire the skills. This indicates that maybe the six-week time frame of the study was not long
enough for students to obtain and master those specific flexible and adaptable skills. A longer
duration of study may be required for comparison and to allow students to utilize skills acquired
through interventional programming.
Subjective Analysis and Summary of Each Learner
Student #1
Student #1 progressed consistently throughout the IXL Learning subcategory criterion
levels without completing all sixteen levels. If given another week of interventional practices, it
is predicted that Student #1 would have completed all levels within the place value skill category
at the second-grade level. This participant was consistently engaged in the program and excited
to get logged on to the Chromebook upon entering the intervention classroom. Student #1 had
105

asked for restroom breaks and a two-minute break during one of the sessions due to a
stomachache. Other than those two incidents, Student #1 worked hard within the program and
was excited to share with the researcher the progress made, often bringing the Chromebook to
the researcher, looking for positive verbal feedback. Student #1 was very familiar with using a
Chromebook. The participant rarely needed help logging into the device or IXL Learning after
the initial start date. This indicates self-regulation, responsibility, and maturation compared to
students of the same age.
As Student #1 scored lower on the second researcher-created, curriculum-based weekly
assessment compared to the first week, the researcher questioned what caused the dip in scores.
Was the first assessment score lucky? As the study continued after assessment two, Student #1’s
weekly assessments increased, supporting a prediction IXL Learning producing increased scores.
In summary, Student #1 gained content knowledge in the place value skills categories
while participating in the IXL Learning criterion-changing study. Assessment data and weekly
researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment scores are similar, demonstrating an incline in
Figures 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 of data collected. It is apparent that this study was productive for Student
#1 and would continue to do so after the duration of this specific study.
Student #2
While analyzing Student #2’s graphed progression through the IXL Learning place value
skills criterion levels, Student #2 demonstrates progressive growth. Upon further examination, it
is evident that Student #2 was halted at criterion level two (L2) for three weeks of the six-week
study duration, and then again at criterion level nine (L9) for the last two weeks of the study.
However, within those last two weeks, the student was absent one day per week of the IXL
Learning intervention days. Did absenteeism affect the progression from criterion level nine (L9)
106

to criterion level ten (L10)? If the study continued for another two weeks, could Student #2 have
made it through all sixteen levels of the study?
While examining Student #2’s weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments,
the initial score started at 100% accuracy. At this point, the researcher was alerted to the
proficient score, questioning how the student would perform throughout the next few weeks of
the study. Unfortunately, the student dipped down to a score of 2 correct answers and then
remained stagnant at 4 correct answers for the remainder of the study.
In summary, Student #2 gained some place value skills as measured by their IXL
Learning data. However, the weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment results
indicated an inconsistent conclusion. When reading the weekly assessment scores, the researcher
cannot confidently state that Student #2 gained skills by participating in the six-week study. It is
important to note that Student #2 would often sit quietly, waiting for the researcher to prompt to
initiate the thirty-minute session. This made the researcher question how much of the session the
student was on task or engaged in the actual work of IXL Learning. Only closer monitoring and
data collection would be able to assist with this information in a replication of this study.
Student #3
While analyzing Student #3’s progression in the IXL Learning place value skills, the
student demonstrated slight growth with a stall at criterion level 4 (L4). The researcher found it
interesting that this student worked through three criterion levels on day 2 of the study but did
not progress much further throughout the next sixteen IXL Learning trial dates. This causes the
researcher to question what caused the stagnant progression for Student #3 and how it could be
prevented in replication of this study.

107

As Student #3’s weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment results,
inconclusive data is presented. The student scores low at the beginning of the study, increases up
until week four of the study, where they start a decline for the remainder of the study. The
researcher questioned what caused the decline after week four, almost leveling out with the
initial week score of 1 correct answer.
In summary, Student #3 gained minimal place value skills as measured by their IXL
Learning data. However, the weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment results
indicated an inconsistent conclusion. When reading the weekly assessment scores, the researcher
cannot confidently state that Student #3 gained skills by participating in the six-week study, as
measured by the weekly assessments.
Student #4
Student #4’s IXL Learning data points appear very similar to Student #2 and #3’s
progression trend. Student #4 also got stalled at criterion level 4 (L4), causing the researcher to
question why so many participants got stuck at that level, as examined in the Unexpected
Findings section of Chapter 5.
When looking at the weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment data for
Student #4, a concluding pattern is not able to be drawn. The participant starts off with two
weeks of a stagnant score of 3, yet continues to increase, decrease, and then increase their score
again at the conclusion of the study.
While working with Student #4, there were many days where the student appeared to be
in an upset or angry mood. This prompts the researcher to question the student’s motivation,
mental health, cooperation with the IXL Learning study, and the progress/lack of progress within
the study. In summary, Student #4 started with 3 correct answers on the first weekly assessment,
108

and also ended with 3 correct answers on the concluding assessment. Without the data from
assessment 2-5 and focusing on the initial and final researcher-created, curriculum-based
assessments, it would appear this specific study was not beneficial for Student #4’s place value
skills and the student demonstrated no growth by participating in the study. In fact, Student #4
presented a decline in the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic assessment, scoring 26 total points in the
spring and only 22 points in the fall. This does not support an effective intervention program of
IXL Learning.
Student #5
Student #5 appears to have scored at the lowest criterion level of IXL Learning for the
longest duration within the study. Student #5 was halted at criterion level 2 (L2) for seventeen
IXL Learning days. Outside of this specific study, an intervention specialist would have acted
sooner to assist Student #5 in their progression by changing up the intervention to promote
success. By providing a “mini-lesson”, video, or instructional lesson, Student #5 may have been
able to progress past criterion level 2 in the study. However, for the sake of the research and
design of the study, Student #5 was encouraged to try their best and continued to participate,
despite knowing they weren’t progressing like some peers within the study. This factor did not
seem to affect the student’s outlook on the study or attitude within the classroom. A positive and
exciting attitude remained throughout the study.
On the other hand, Student #5’s weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment
data indicates a significant increase in place value scores. After balancing between 3 or 4 points
for the first four weeks, Student #5 soared to 6 correct answers in week five and 4 correct in the
final week. Student #5 increased their weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment
scores and their overall Savvas EnVision Diagnostic assessment by one point. Diving deeper,
109

Student #5 score 3 correct answers out of 5 total in the Numbers and Place Value to 100 section
of the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic assessment in the spring. In the fall, Student #5 increased that
score to five out of five correct on the same assessment. When comparing these assessments to
the halted IXL Learning data, the researcher questions the validity of using all three tools within
the study. How can the student progress on paper assessments but make no progress in IXL
Learning over seventeen days? Is just the exposure to the problems through IXL Learning
enough to support their learning and progression through the IXL Learning criterion levels?
Student #5 appeared to have a positive and excited outlook while participating in the
study. The student would question the researcher on the schedule of the study, in excitement to
repeat the weekly events. However, Student #5 would often get distracted by neighbors who
were not participating in the study but were still instructed to utilize IXL Learning, engaging in
conversations that required prompting from the researcher to continue to focus on the study.
These prompts were most needed on IXL Learning days, as assessment and puzzle/game days
were mainly one-to-one student-to-researcher ratios that could eliminate distractions of other
students within the enrichment class period. In summary, Student #5’s data is conflicting. IXL
Learning does not show an improvement to the student’s skills, while the weekly assessments
and Savvas EnVision Diagnostic assessments indicated IXL Learning as a successful
intervention that assisted in improving the weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based
assessment scores. This conclusion is vital when sharing with educators. Some students may
increase specific data, while others may not when presented with the same opportunities.
Assessment data pieces or trends may not match intervention data pieces or trends for the same
student. This also supports an individualized approach to intervention, as each student has their
own needs, styles of learning, and engagement in specific activities.
110

Student #6
For three consecutive weeks, Student #6 started the week in IXL Learning advancing to
the next criterion level within the program. However, this progression stopped in week three,
where Student #6 remained at criterion level 4 (L4) for the remainder of the study, very similarly
to other participants in the study.
Like Student #5, Student #6’s weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments
demonstrate growth in scores. Even though Student #6’s IXL Learning progression is halted,
their progress in the weekly assessments increased after the six-week study. Student #6’s Savvas
EnVision Diagnostic assessment declined by six points from spring to fall and remained the
same within the Numbers and Place Value to 100 section of the assessment.
In summary, Student #6’s data is not supportive in confirming IXL Learning as an
effective and efficient interventional program for place value skills. Inconsistent assessment
results and IXL Learning data confirms that no implications can be made on Student #6’s data.
Because Student #6 was quiet and reserved, the researcher questions if the student was seeking
or needing assistance working in IXL Learning but was hesitant or scared to ask the researcher
for help. There were many instances where the researcher would have to verbally prompt the
student and/or give the student a countdown of how many minutes were left until the group was
complete with the enrichment time frame and permitted to transition to their next class. If the
researcher was positioned next to Student #6 in a smaller ratio, would that have promoted
continued engagement and promotion through the sixteen levels of place value IXL Learning?
Student #7
Student #7 started off trending like many other participants where they were halted at
level 4 (L4) within the sixteen subcategories of place value skills in IXL. However, Student #7
111

was able to progress to criterion 5 and 6 (L5 and L6) in the last two weeks of the study. The
researcher questions if there was more time in the study, would Student #7 have continued to
progress. Did the student just need more time? What caused Student #7 to break through to
criterion level 5 and 6 at the tail end of the study?
The weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment data for Student #7
increased overall. Student #7 started with 3 correct answers and ended the study with 5 correct
answers at the conclusion of the study. The inconsistent trend line throughout the body of the
study does not support the hypothesis that IXL Learning would promote second-grade place
value skills. However, if the initial and final assessment results are compared, this data does
support the hypothesis that IXL Learning will improve weekly assessment scores over a sixweek time frame.
In summary, even though the graphing for Student #7 shows fluctuation, the trend of data
collected increases, indicating IXL Learning as a successful tool used to increase weekly place
value skills. It is important to note that this specific student has an Oppositional Defiant Disorder
(ODD) diagnosis, requiring medication to be administered daily. Did medication/lack of
medication sway data collection? The student appeared to be compliant with the study with a
positive attitude. However, the researcher questions if there was a silent opposition to fully
participating that may have hindered progression within the study that was not obviously
presented at the time.
Student #8
Within the first week of the study, Student #8 progressed rather quickly, jumping from
criterion level 1 (L1) to 5 (L5) within the first three days of IXL Learning intervention. This
growth caused the researcher to predict the student would move quickly throughout the total
112

sixteen criterion subcategories and could then be identified as the first student to exit the study.
However, week three of the study halted the student. Student #8 remained at Level 10 (L10) for a
total of eleven days before progressing to the final criterion level 12 (L12) on the last day of IXL
Learning. What caused Student #8 to be stuck at level 10 (L10) for so long? And, what caused
the student to finally progress on the last day of the study? Student #8 completed more
subcategories in IXL Learning skills compared to most participants in the study.
In summary, while analyzing Student #8’s weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based
assessment results, the common dip in scores of assessment week 2 is present. When looking at
the initial score of 5 out of 7 and comparing it to the final score of 4 out of 7, it appears that IXL
Learning was not a productive intervention for Student #8 despite the growth through the IXL
Learning criterion subcategories, landing on criterion level 10 (L10) at the conclusion of the
study. However, the high score of 6 out of 7 for Student #8 assists in the computation of the
average score of weekly assessments of all participants, resulting in naming IXL Learning a
successful intervention. It is important to note that Student #8 was very particular about their
performance in IXL Learning. This participant insisted on completing each level of IXL
Learning to the SmartScore of 100 for each subcategory. This demonstrates self-regulation, goal
setting, and a great work ethic. However, this could have caused the student to remain at each
level longer than necessarily needed for the study. It was evident that Student #8 had participated
in IXL Learning for other skills in previous courses, as the goal was internally set to a
SmartScore of 100 by that student. This information allows the researcher to recommend setting
a common SmartScore goal for all students instead of allowing the SmartScore of 80 to 100
demonstrating proficiency. If all students reach the exact same SmartScore, no time within the
study will be misspent.
113

Student #9
Student #9 remained the fastest growing student when comparing the criterion changing
progression charts. This student reached the last criterion within week four of the study and was
exited in week six. The demeanor of this student matches the progress in the graph (Figure
4.14.1). This participant was excited, upbeat, and willing to work hard with minimal prompting
or rewards. At times, student #9 would ask to continue working on the criterion level to reach the
100 SmartScore. This demonstrates the work ethic and pride Student #9 presented in their work.
The weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessment scores for Student #9 also
demonstrates consistent progress within the program. Like many of the other participants, the dip
in score is present at week 2. This dip remains for the third week, but is eliminated by the fourth
week, as Student #9 continued to climb to 6 out of 7 answers correct at the conclusion of the
study. This growth may appear minimal, starting with a score of 5 and ending with a score of 6.
However, the trend line of Student #9 is the most supportive of the hypothesis, indicating that
IXL Learning is an appropriate and effective intervention for second-grade place value skills. If
data for all students demonstrated such growth, the researcher could confidently state that IXL
Learning is the best interventional program to utilize with place value skill deficits for secondgrade students.
In summary, the progress that Student #9 presented in IXL Learning and the researchercreated, curriculum-based assessments would be ideal for all students who have demonstrated a
place value deficit. It is understood that not all students would be as successful with such a
program but allows current educators to see successful interventional practice post-COVID-19
with a second-grade student dedicated to improvement. Student #9’s data also supports an
individualized approach to student intervention needs and practices presented by educators.
114

Unexpected Findings
Within this specific study, various unexpected findings occurred regarding student
engagement, curriculum scope and sequencing, and conflicting data comparison across two
measurement tools of the study. The first unexpected finding within the study was the lack of
student initiative to read the remedial lessons provided after incorrect answers. IXL Learning
provides remediation to students when they answer a question incorrectly. However, it was
evident that many of the students who engaged in the study did not scroll down on their screen
after an incorrect answer to review the remediation tips to assist them in promoting their learning
and increasing their Smartscore. By ignoring the remedial prompts, they were not obtaining
feedback provided to them by IXL Learning. This was an unexpected limitation and could be the
causation of four students remaining stagnant in the study for several session dates at
subcategory L2 and L4. Students would frequently click to the next question without trying to
understand their mistake. Also presented as a limitation, is the lack of initial emphasis from the
researcher on encouraging participants to scroll down to read the remedial text. Future
replication of the study should include an emphasis on student engagement with the remedial
prompts to assist in determining IXL Learning a successful interventional program.
It is important to note that some students desired to reach a SmartScore of 100 in their
IXL Learning subskills before moving on to the next criterion level. Other students stopped
working on that subcategory once they reached the score of 80 SmartScore points, as set as the
goal by the researcher. Upon data analysis, the researcher questions if students who insisted on
obtaining a score of 100 misspent time within the study. Could that student have moved to the
next criterion level quicker, producing a more successful study? It is recommended that one

115

common SmartScore goal is selected prior to replication of this study. This will eliminate wasted
time and promote consistency between all participants.
Unexpected variables throughout the study also included student restroom use within the
half-hour time frame, technological and internet difficulties, lack of experience with
Chromebooks in second-grade students, limited Chromebook availability, and the lack of
excitement in student participation as the study went on. These findings should be considered for
future replications of IXL Learning intervention research. These limitations are to be expected
when working with primary education students and technology in the public education setting.
Another unexpected finding is that the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Curriculum requires
students to utilize place value skills of the tens, ones, and hundreds digits for addition and
subtraction strategies without reviewing the skills at the second-grade level. Not until the ninth
unit of the series does the review of those place value skills arise, with the addition of the
thousands place value instruction. This presents confusion for students and supplemental
instructional work for the educator to meet the needs of the students if the curriculum is
presented in sequence as Savvas EnVision recommends. In future presentations of this
curriculum, units may require alternate sequencing to assist students in foundational and
sequential learning throughout the second-grade mathematical curriculum, along with various
supplemental tools, activities, and worksheets to review the ones, tens, and hundreds place value
concepts throughout the first nine units of the curriculum. Also, to be debated in future research,
Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment includes only five “Numbers and Place Value
to 100” questions on the assessment. Is this enough to portray the student’s understanding of
place value where IXL Learning divides it into sixteen subcategories? Should Savvas include

116

more questioning to assess all areas of place value skills? Is the assessment piece biased, valid,
or reliable at the second-grade level?
When looking at the researcher's prediction of data collected in this specific study, an
increase in the weekly assessment scores should indicate IXL Learning as an effective
interventional tool. The study data indicates this, as Figure 4.5 explains the average score of all
participants each week of the study increasing from 3.6 to 4.0. However, what was unexpected
within the data was the comparison between the successful weekly assessment data and the
stagnant data collected from IXL Learning for the majority of students of the study. Students
demonstrated inconsistent progression through the IXL Learning subcategories. Some students
did not make it through subcategory L4, while only one made it through all sixteen. It was
interesting that data from one tool supported IXL Learning while data from another tool (IXL
Learning) did not indicate IXL Learning as a successful independent intervention tool. There is
consequential data presenting an increase of student weekly assessment scores after
implementation of IXL Learning three times a week on second-grade place value skills.
Inconsistencies between data collection modes were evident as some students remained flat or
stagnant within their IXL Learning criterion-changes, yet their weekly assessment scores
fluctuated. These inconsistencies were explained in Chapter 4, examining each participant of the
study.
Furthermore, a dip in scores on the weekly assessment is presented by a larger number of
the participants during week 2 of the study. The researcher questioned why this decrease
occurred and reviewed the weekly events of that specific calendar week. No major changes to the
district, teacher, or students’ calendars were indicated. The only disruption to the schedule found
was that students were given a day off school for a local festival held at the conclusion of week 6
117

of the study, indicating no disruption to week 2’s intervention schedule. The causation of the dip
in scores for week 2 is inconclusive.
As educators would have anticipated, student participation in the repetitive weekly
assessment should have created increasing scores. This is not the case for most of the participants
within the study. The weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments were mirrored
from the questions presented on the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment from the “Place
Values and Numbers to 100” section to prevent biased data collection and increase repetition.
Names and numbers within the questions were altered from week to week. However, the
instructions of the question, the formatting, the order, and the physical appearance of the
questions remained the same. Educators would anticipate a repeated assessment would increase
scores and produce increasing trend lines within the data. Unpredictable data trends were
collected regarding the weekly assessment averages, allowing the researcher to question why
students were unsuccessful at producing predominant outcomes in support of the hypothesis.
As mentioned before, subcategories 2 (L2) and 4 (L4) appear to have the greatest number
of days spent on that level across all participants in the study. This caused the researcher to
question why those two specific levels were challenging for students. As examined closer, level
2 (L2) focuses on “Place Value Models- Up to Hundreds”, while level 4 (L4) focuses on
“Identify A Digit Up to The Hundreds Place”. The only connection between these levels is the
addition of hundreds of place values within the content. What is unexpected within the data is
that some students were able to master the “Place Value Models- Up to Hundreds”, move on to
“Place Value Models-Up to Thousands” (L3), but then get stuck on level 4 (L4), “Identify A
Digit Up to The Hundreds Place”. Educators might assume if students can use place value
models to identify a hundreds digit number, then they should have no hesitation identifying a
118

digit up to the hundreds place value. Data collected within this study suggests the opposite of
that. This could be a coincidental connection between levels, yet more research could assist in
identifying connections between the two subcategories of place value skills within IXL Learning.
While seeing a possible connection between the challenging subcategories of the IXL
Learning model, the researcher then started to question other components of the study that may
have presented bias to the data. These include the connection between the data and genders, the
connection to socioeconomic status of each student compared to their performance, the
connection between their pre-schooling experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, the data
connections to students administered ADHD/ODD medication on a daily basis compared to
participants who are not administered any medication, and the connection between their age in
the grade level compared to the data collected within this study. However, the foundations of this
specific study did not plan to examine the data in depth to identify the listed connections. More
research is needed to appropriately make those implications to eliminate such biased results in a
similar place-value skills research study.
Figure 5.1
Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Individual Record Form

119

Note. Figure 5.1 illustrates the Numbers, Place Value, Money, and Patterns section of the
Individual Record Form of the Savvas EnVision Diagnostic Assessment. This same form is
utilized with Form A and Form B of the diagnostic assessment. (Savvas Learning Company,
2023)
When analyzing the initial benchmark assessment of the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade
Diagnostic Assessment Form A, the researcher used the 80% threshold discussed in Chapter 1 to
determine place value proficiency. Therefore, students who scored four correct answers out of
five possible answers scored 80% proficiency and were excluded from the participant invitation
at the onset of the study. Upon further examination of the Savvas EnVision Individual Record
Form (Appendix C) it is determined that the place value skill is conjoined with four other
categories, combining to make the Numbers, Place Value, Money, and Patterns section of the
assessment. The Numbers, Place Value, Money, and Patterns section of the Individual Record
Form is illustrated in Figure 5.1. A set of norms was not outlined specifically for the Numbers
and Place Value to 100 components of the assessment. When looking at a completed Individual
Record Form, it could appear that a student would score proficient in the Numbers, Place Value,
Money, and Patterns section. However, the scenario of a student scoring all possible points in the
Fractions, Money, and Greater Numbers, Comparing, and Numbering sections could produce a
sum meeting the norms set by Savvas EnVision of a proficient score of 12 correct answers out of
17 possible. In this sample scenario, the student could have missed all Numbers and Place Value
to 100 questions and still scored proficient in that overall Numbers, Place Value, Money, and
Patterns section of the assessment. With this information, the researcher questions the reliability
of the results produced from the Savvas EnVision Individual Record Form. If the assessment
record form provided norms for each individual section of the assessment, educators could have
120

a better idea of student strengths and weaknesses, rather than knowing the student is struggling in
such a broad range of mathematical skills like Numbers, Place Value, Money, and Patterns. It is
recommended that the Savvas Learning Company identify the proficient criteria according to
national norms identified through their standards-based curriculum and evidence-based research
for each specific category of the curriculum and assessment.
What Is Working and What Is Not Working
Referring to Figure 4.4, the number of questions students were exposed to by using IXL
Learning is extremely high for a thirty-minute period of mathematical intervention in the general
education setting. Without technology, one teacher would not be able to present thirty questions
independently to a student in a thirty-minute time frame on the appropriate skill and ability level.
Therefore, what is working for students by engaging in IXL Learning is that they are engaged in
frequent and abundant mathematical practice with or without the correct answer. This is
something educators may not be able to replicate in the classroom utilizing other resources
including human/instructor performance. This data exceeded any expectations for student
participation within the study and supports the use of a tailored interventional program when
working with primary students.
What also was working in the study was the consistent work on place value skills.
Students working on the skill three times a week for six weeks allowed them to focus on those
skills alone. A lot of times, interventionists or interventional programs jump around, using
different resources, and assessments with students. This study provides consistency of
interventional practices with the students and the programing of the resources implemented in
the study. Students were even able to identify which subcategory they needed to work on next

121

due to their familiarity with the program after the six-week program. The researcher supports this
self-regulation and educational independence inadvertently supported within the study.
For this specific study, there were two components that were not working or were
considered unsuccessful. First and most importantly to the study, students did not take the time
to read the remedial assistance that IXL Learning provided to them after an incorrect answer.
This prevented students from obtaining feedback regarding how they answered the question
incorrectly. Students then clicked on the next question, appearing to move quicker through the
questions with or without the correct answers and remediation needed. If students read the
remedial instruction, could they have effectively and efficiently moved through the sixteen
subcategories at a quicker pace? Would this have changed the weekly researcher-created,
curriculum-based assessment results?
The second component of the study that was unsuccessful was creating and prolonging
student motivation or engagement. Throughout the study, students engaged in behaviors
indicating a lack of desire to complete place value questions or indicating boredom with the
repetition of the IXL Learning portion. Verbal praise and encouragement from the researcher
was not enough to motivate students to want to complete the thirty-minute IXL Learning
sessions with excitement, accuracy, and focus. At one point, a student asked if a piece of candy
would be awarded upon completion of the thirty-minute session. This type of reward/feedback
may be considered for replication or similar studies in the future outside of such a research study.
Researchers cannot forget the primary components of working with seven- and eight-year-old
students. Feedback, praise, rewards, and motivational behavior plans assist their engagement and
excitement in a variety of ways. When utilizing this interventional schedule outside of a

122

dissertation research study, tangible rewards may alter and improve data points for these primary
students who are struggling and lacking motivation.
Overall, in education, what is not working is the instructional practices of place value
skills. Students are demonstrating a decline in place value skills, as evident in the research and
current Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Curriculum sequencing. As universities are preparing future
educators, attention should be focused on instructional strategies or such foundational skills like
place value and number sense. Research provides a lack of interventional series or programs to
assist with place value remediation; therefore, focus should be placed on instructional practices
and professional development for future/current instructors. When selecting new mathematical
series for instruction, administration and educators should note the sequence and depth of place
value skills before selecting the series to promote the foundational skill in the most efficient and
effective way.
What Is the Answer?
Data collection of the researcher-created, curriculum-based assessments support the
study’s prediction that IXL Learning increases students’ weekly assessment scores. This data
shows IXL Learning as an effective tool to be utilized in place value instruction. On the other
hand, data from IXL Learning that tracked student progress through the sixteen subcategories of
place value does not support IXL Learning as an effective intervention. Many students remained
stagnant within the sixteen subcategories of the program, indicating they were not getting the
remediation they needed to continue to the next criterion subcategory. If IXL Learning is not
considered a successful intervention when utilized alone and lacking student motivation, then
what is the solution to declining mathematical practices and student scores?

123

After reviewing the research and data found within this study, it is recommended that a
blended approach to mathematical instruction be implemented in second-grade classrooms to
best support place-value learning. Utilizing whole group instruction, small group instruction,
IXL Learning, teacher professional development opportunities on place value, and other
interventional practices would support all components of mathematical instruction, more
specifically place value skills. Including manipulatives and visual representation of place value
by using base ten blocks could reach diverse types of learners. Math manipulatives encourage
students to make the “hand-to-mind” connection for such abstract mathematical topics or
strategies (Continental, 2022) and may be beneficial in such a topic like place value. It is
recommended that educators continue to utilize IXL Learning as a supplemental tool for specific
skill sets in any subject area. The ease of implementation and tailored presentation of questions
of IXL Learning is valuable for educators striving for differentiated instruction, simultaneously.
However, educators must not rely on IXL Learning for full instructional responsibilities, alone.
A blended approach, including a variety of instructional modes for any skill would meet the
specific needs of all learners.
Also, moving around the sequencing of units within the Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade
Curriculum would be beneficial for sequential and scaffolded learning of place value skills. At
the second-grade level within this rural, low-income district of study, the second-grade team
plans to alter the sequencing of units to best provide instructional and foundational skills
necessary for place value skill acquisition. The researcher will advocate and promote similar
curricular changes or alterations for future instruction across grade levels as the district’s
curriculum maps are being created and aligned.

124

If the study were to be replicated as an interventional program, a quick remedial lesson
could be presented at the conclusion of each week of the study, assuring participants obtain the
instruction needed in the place value subcategory. Allowing students to discuss or ask questions
would assist in their comprehension of the place value topics of this study. Providing a remedial
lesson could prevent students from getting stuck at a specific subcategory. This would also
increase students’ SmartScores at a quicker pace if students were able to get a blended, remedial
approach to the content of each category.
While looking at IXL Learning as an online-interactive educational tool, a suggestion to
their programing would be to present the remedial information in a short video, rather than text
after an incorrect answer. This would promote or ensure that students obtain feedback in the
remedial lessons of IXL Learning in an alternate format that could be comprehended without
reading. Students in this specific study also struggled with reading skills, therefore, struggled to
obtain the text provided. If a video or voiceover option was presented that a student was required
to view before moving on to the next question, comprehension of the skill and proficiency may
improve at a faster pace. By requiring the students to view the remedial lesson, educators could
be confident students had been presented the information after each incorrect answer. Another
suggestion to IXL Learning would be to include an introductory lesson/video to students before
they begin answering questions. At times, students would ask the researcher what the question
was asking because it was new to them, and they needed clarification. By providing an example
of the expectations for that specific skill and question type, students may increase their
productivity throughout the program, resulting in successful skills.
Within the small district of study, there is a large need for an Intervention Specialist
position. Creating this position would provide the classroom educators with additional
125

interventional tools, data collection and analysis, special education reporting assistance, and
support in the overall child study progress. Currently, the district has many goals identified in the
initial stages of the MTSS programing. However, obtaining and implementing an Intervention
Specialist within the district would assist in reaching those goals, including academic and
behavioral goals within the MTSS process. As educators within the district administer
assessments and share results of the assessments, an Intervention Specialist would encourage all
faculty to dive deeper into student deficits, creating plans for progress in all areas. By including
an Intervention Specialist, areas that may also be promoted include extra mathematical
intervention groups, ability grouping for core subject areas based on skill deficits, supported and
overseen progress monitoring of interventional processing, and assisting in communicating data
throughout the district and with all stakeholders. Utilizing one leader within the district would
simplify and stimulate successful instructional practices, interventional practices, and
communication throughout the district.
Furthermore, a curricular change may be necessary in the developing mathematical
success within the small district. Maybe the Savvas EnVision Curriculum and Diagnostic
assessments are biased? Maybe they are ineffective in promoting mathematical success to
students who have endured interruptions to their education and other events associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic. A curricular change would require all stakeholder’s participation and
support within such a small district. Curriculum maps were created in the spring of 2023 for all
teachers within the district, in hopes of aligning grade levels and subjects in future inservice
sessions. This initial step will allow the faculty of the district to identify needs and strengths
within their curricular practices across all grade levels, along with identifying MTSS goals for
core subject areas and behaviors.
126

Conclusions and Implications
In reference to the literature reviewed, IXL Learning provided tailored instructional
interventions that technology can provide, eliminating some professional duties of the teacher.
Students worked at their own ability level and paced themselves throughout the study as IXL
Learning intends (Hedrick, 2021). Participants’ weekly researcher-created, curriculum-based
assessment scores slightly increased after the six-week study. However, when considering the
literature available and this study’s findings, it is recommended that a blended intervention
approach be utilized when providing place value intervention to second-grade students. It is
recommended that educators not rely on software or online programs alone to support place
value skills and learning to second-grade students, rather than utilize such programming as an
educational tool supporting core skills.
As inconsistent data was collected on both the weekly researcher-created, curriculumbased assessments and the IXL Learning criterion progression charts, the Savvas EnVision
curriculum and diagnostic program is questioned. Was Savvas EnVision the best assessment to
measure the IXL Learning program? Is the assessment program producing biased results,
specifically found within this study? The researcher questioned if other assessment and
diagnostic programs are available for replication of this specific study of IXL Learning in place
value skills. It is propounded that the validity and reliability of the Savvas EnVision program be
researched by administrators and educators prior to purchasing or implementing the program to
assure alignment with their instructional and assessment goals. Future research may also explore
the specific strategies and wording of questions between the Savvas Envision curriculum and the
IXL Learning place value questions. Do they align perfectly? Are all skills taught or reviewed in
a similar manner?
127

As the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to surface, educators are being tested
in their abilities to improve student progress and their own instructional practices. Because all
students learn differently, intervention strategies vary, including the online interactive platform
like IXL Learning. The findings within this specific study allow educators to see the
implementation of IXL Learning as an intervention, in hopes of improving student place value
skills. The results of this study allow educators to reassess the sequencing of their curriculum
maps in order to present content fluidly to students, keeping place value skills in mind as the
foundation. Educators are also able to relate to the happenings within this specific district postpandemic. Implications presented at the conclusion of the study support the continuation of IXL
Learning as an interventional tool, supported with other blended instructional strategies and
resources to best support place value skills for second-grade students in the public education
setting.
Future Research Recommendations
Various recommendations for future research were identified as a result of this study. A
major component of the study was the use of educational technology as an intervention.
Exploring professional development opportunities and tools for educators on implementation and
utilization of educational technology would be beneficial to educators today. Also, comparing
the educational technology of IXL Learning and other online educational intervention platforms
would be beneficial to educators targeting specific mathematics skills or programs that
successfully support student needs.
Because this specific study was performed with a small sample size in a shortened time
frame, performing the same study with a larger sample of students is worth researching. With the
study only including nine students, generalization of the data was difficult. Student permission
128

forms were sent home with students at the end of May 2023. The school year ended the first
week of June 2023. It is assumed that many families forgot about the permission paperwork over
summer break, therefore, producing a small sample of students with parental permission. To
produce a larger sample size, the researcher should have reached out to all parents again upon
returning to school in the fall, identifying the participation status of their child. A larger sample
size would be beneficial in determining if IXL Learning is a successful intervention for place
value skills to generalize the data across districts, socioeconomic differences, and district
locations.
It is recommended to conduct the same research in a longer, longitudinal study. Eighteen
days of online IXL Learning appears to be a short period of time when setting the goal of sixteen
IXL Learning place value criterion levels. This may have been an unattainable goal for the
struggling learners due to a short time frame of the study and their level of educational deficits at
the initiation of the study. The researcher intended on making the study short to prevent core
content being instructed in regular mathematics classes that could control the data in an
unintended manner.
Alterations to the study could also include different age groups with similar mathematical
skill needs. Students’ perspective of place value skills and strategies in qualitative data collection
would also produce some valuable information for current educators. How do students feel about
their skills, needs, and instruction? Can parents provide some further information to assist in data
analysis, skill deficits, or the use of the tools utilized within this study?
By adding a motivational reward other than those administered through IXL Learning,
students may engage with increased effort. When tangible rewards are presented or offered on a
daily or weekly basis, students would have a goal to look forward to and work towards. A small
129

reward like a piece of candy might be a motivating factor after each IXL Learning thirty-minute
session and would promote student success in the program, along with a larger reward at the end
of each week and/or the completion of the study. While investigating the results of this study,
future similar studies may include two specific groups; one that performs as this study did, while
the second group has a short lesson on day five of the weekly schedule with the teacher.
Comparing the progress of the two groups would provide more information, as educators would
want to generalize data collected from such a study.
Promoting engagement and motivation prior to the start of the study can be connected to
the emphasis on reading the remedial prompts provided by IXL Learning after each incorrect
answer. Future replications of this study should include this detail within their initial discussion
with students. Within this specific study, it was not emphasized to participants to confirm they
were reading or reviewing the remedial prompts before continuing to the next question.
Future exploration of the connection between the theory of memory and place value skills
is desired. How do educators accurately assess a student's place value understanding? Is it rotelearned procedures or understanding (Wilkinson, 2017, p. 51)? How do students acquire the
knowledge of place-value when they have not yet received any formal instruction on it (Kong&
Chan, 2021, p. 454)? Children’s understanding of place value within specific tasks or strategies
is yet to be researched in depth, along with how memory affects their comprehension, application
of skill, or generalization.
Another recommendation for future replication of this study would be the utilization of
an alternative curriculum-based, standards-based assessment program to identify student
strengths and deficits. Because the Individual Record Form does not specifically identify the
norm referenced criteria for proficiency in the place value section, an alternative assessment may
130

be able to provide different data regarding student needs, in a more specific manner. In future
studies, researching the different diagnostic assessments could be beneficial to educators and
administrators.
Lastly, exploration of IXL Learning interventional practices on a different subject area
and/or skill could provide alternative data, presenting meaningful analysis for educators at the
second-grade level. It is possible that the place value skill was too narrow or too broad of a
skillset, causing inconsistent data across the analysis tools of this study. At the second-grade
level, an IXL Learning language arts skill of “verb tense” consists of 18 subcategories, while the
“silent e” skill only has 4 subcategories. Comparing the data similar to that of this study could
allow researchers to compare the number of subcategories with the student progression in the
study. Furthermore, the language arts skills data collection and analysis could be compared to the
data collection of this specific place value skills study. Because there is a lack of research
regarding IXL Learning as an intervention, the researcher should continue to use IXL Learning
as a supplemental tool in all skill areas, as needed for specific instructional goals or student
needs.
Summary and Conclusion/Concluding Remarks
After reflecting on the collected data of Chapter 4 and the reflection within Chapter 5, the
researcher can conclude that IXL Learning as an independent intervention when utilized for
thirty-minutes per day does increase students’ weekly assessment scores. IXL Learning produced
inconsistent results regarding student’s criterion level progression in the place value
subcategories. It is recommended that a balanced and blended instructional approach be utilized
in addition to IXL Learning as an appropriate place value intervention. Although students were
not successful in completing all sixteen subcategories of the place value skills of IXL Learning
131

in the six-week study time frame, they were exposed to over 4,000 place value questions and
demonstrated a slight increase in scores of their weekly assessments. As COVID-19 educational
effects surface and are analyzed, interventional practices will be improved and solidified for
primary students affected by the pandemic in all academic areas, including place value skills.
The data collected within this study can only assist educators close those educational gaps and
deficits, while supporting future research on instructional technology, interventional
programming, place value skills at the primary level, and the implementation of IXL Learning.

132

REFERENCES

Age of Learning, Inc. . (2023). ABCmouse: Educational games, books, Puzzles & Songs for
Kids & Toddlers. ABCmouse.com.
https://www.abcmouse.com/abc/?8a08850bc2=T680450816.1699654549.696
Aldridge, K. (2021). The Relationship Between I-Ready Intervention and Grade 8 Mathematical
Achievement (dissertation). Kenyatta Shanta Aldridge, Columbus, GA.
Bashkov, B., Mattison, K., & Hochstein, L. (2021, March). IXL Design Principles. IXL
Designing Principles. https://www.ixl.com/research/IXL_Design_Principles.pdf
Bashkov, B. (2021, August). Assessing the Impact of IXL Math over Three Years: A QuasiExperimental Study. IXL Learning.
https://www.ixl.com/materials/us/research/IXL_Math_3-Year_QED_ESSA_Tier_2.pdf
Bouck, E. C., & Long, H. (2023). Online delivery of a manipulative-based intervention package
for finding equivalent fractions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32(2), 313–333.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09449-y
Bouck, E. C., Long, H., & Jakubow, L. (2022). Teaching struggling students mathematics online
via explicit instruction. Preventing School Failure, 66(2), 126–135. https://doi-org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1980852
Bridgett, E. (2022). A place for everything and everything in its place: Is place value a help or a
hindrance? Mathematics Teaching, 280, 32–33.
Bvorel. (2021, May 12). 5 critical issues in Mathematics Education. Barry University.
https://online.barry.edu/degrees/education/masters-science/curriculum-instruction,ath/criticial-issues/

133

Caldwell, J. (2020). Developing conceptual understanding: The case of place value. Savvas.
https://assets.savvas.com/asset_mgr/current/201922/DevConceptUnderstandingJC_WP.pdf
Cherney, K. (2016, June 29). Anxiety and technology in the classroom: Identification and
solutions for multimodal inclusivity. Digital Rhetoric Collaborative.
https://www.digitalrhetoriccollaborative.org/2016/06/29/anxiety-and-technology-in-theclassroom-identification-and-solutions-for-multimodal-inclusivity/
Cheung, P., & Ansari, D. (2021). Cracking the code of place value: The relationship between
place and value takes years to master. Developmental psychology, 57(2), 227–240.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001145
Chhin, C., Brasiel, S., & Bresina, B. (2023, April 17). Investing in Math Learning and
Achievement for All Learners. IES Blog. https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/2023/04/17/default
Cision US Inc. (2020, January 14). IXL Efficacy Research Meets Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) Tier 2 Requirements. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ixl-efficacyresearch-meets-every-student-succeeds-act-essa-tier-2-requirements-300986503.html
Continental. (2022, January 17). The power of elementary math manipulatives. Continental
Press. https://www.continentalpress.com/blog/elementary-mathmanipulatives/#:~:text=Math%20is%20full%20of%20abstract,hands%20have%20a%20s
pecial%20connection.
Del Mar, Z. (2023, April 5). What is Intervention in Education? Insights for K-12 Educators.
https://www.hmhco.com/blog/what-is-intervention-in-education.
DonorsChoose. (2023). Support a classroom: Build a future. DonorsChoose.
https://www.donorschoose.org/
134

D2L Corporation. (2023, October 3). Online learning platform: Creators of the Brightspace LMS
Software. D2L. https://www.d2l.com/
Explore Learning. (2023, August 9). Home: Reflex. Meet Reflex. https://www.reflexmath.com/
Flevares, L. M., Perry, M., Beilstein, S. O., & Bajwa, N. P. (2021). Examining first-graders’
developing understanding of place value via base-ten virtual manipulatives. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 50(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-02101162-9
Gafoor, K., & Kurukkan, A. (2015, December). Learner and teacher perception on difficulties in
learning and Teaching Mathematics: Some Implications. National Conference on
Mathematics Teaching- Approaches and Challenges.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568368.pdf
Google. (2023). Classroom Management Tools & Resources. Google for Education.
https://edu.google.com/intl/ALL_us/workspace-for-education/classroom/
Hall, T., Vue, G., & Mengel, M. (2003). Curriculum-Based Assessments and Implications for
UDL Implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum. http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-curriculum-basedassessments-udl.html
Happy Numbers. (2023). Place Value: Building A Strong Foundation. Happy Numbers.
https://happynumbers.com/blog/place-value-building-strong-foundation/
Hartnett, J. (2018). Teaching place-value: Concept development, big ideas and activities.
Primary Standards. APMC, 23(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1231242.pdf
Heale, A. (2015). Technology Enhancing Kindergarten Students’ Literacy Skills in Math
(dissertation). SUNY.
135

Hedrick, N. (2021, March 5). Turning things around: Online learning platform helps tackle
Covid slide. Journal Review. https://www.journalreview.com/stories/turning-thingsaround,147910
Illuminate Education Inc. (2023). Fastbridge Learning: Research to results. FastBridge Learning
Research to Results. https://auth.fastbridge.org/login.do
IXL Learning. (2023). How it works. IXL Learning.
https://www.ixl.com/membership/teachers/how-it-works
Jackaria, P. M. (2022). Elementary teachers’ experiences and instructional challenges during the
return to school after the COVID-19 closure in the Philippines. International Research
Journal of Science, Technology, Education, & Management (IRJSTEM), 2(2), 216–225.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.5281/zenodo.6955920
Kaplan Early Learning Company. (2023). Kore Wobble Chair. Kaplan Early Learning Company.
https://www.kaplanco.com/product/142279GP/kore-wobblechair?c=1%7CFC1080&utm_term=&utm_campaign=%28ROI%29%2BNB%2BDSA%2
B%2BMain&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&hsa_acc=4352476128&hsa_cam=1
7614154575&hsa_grp=141871854361&hsa_ad=607285928627&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=ds
a19959388920&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad=1&gclid=CjwK
CAjwzJmlBhBBEiwAEJyLuy50UbYI0eGm303_PEm7IfGo64a39sKpqZZe6bXQg9WH
nfqZDYjcvhoC8dMQAvD_BwE
Kamenetz, A. (2022). The stolen year: How covid changed children's lives, and where we go
now. PublicAffairs.
136

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings
(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kong, M. N. K., & Chan, W. W. L. (2021). Automatic processing of place-value in
kindergarteners. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 446–458.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1854216
Kurt, S. (2017, February 8). Definitions of Instructional Technology. Educational Technology.
https://educationaltechnology.net/definitions-of-instructional-technology/
Lake Michigan Academy. (2021, August 9). Intervention vs. Remediation: What’s the
Difference? Lake Michigan Academy.
https://www.lakemichiganacademy.org/intervention-vs-remediation-whats-thedifference/
Leonhardt, D. (2023, April 28). The long shadow of Covid school closures. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/28/briefing/pandemic-school-closures-randiweingarten.html
Liu, K., & Wu, J. (2021). The effect of online homework (IXL) on students’ Mathematics
achievement. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 7(4), 244–249.
https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2021.74.244.249
MacDonald, B., Westenskow, A., Moyer-Pakenham, P., & Child, B. (2018, January 8).
Components of place value understanding: Targeting mathematical difficulties when
providing interventions. School Science and Mathematics, 118 (1-2), p. 17-29.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ssm.12258
Major, K. (2012, July). The development of an assessment tool: Student knowledge of the
concept of place value. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573292.pdf
137

Merlo, A., Hendriksen, P. A., Garssen, J., Bijlsma, E. Y., Engels, F., Bruce, G., & Verster, J. C.
(2021). Transition to online education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact of
changes in alcohol consumption and experiencing hangovers on academic functioning.
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(22), 5332. https://doi-org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.3390/jcm10225332
Mervosh, S. (2022, September 1). The pandemic erased two decades of progress in math and
reading. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/national-testscores-math-reading-pandemic.html
Nagel, N. G., & Swingen, C. C. (1998). Students’ explanations of place value in addition and
subtraction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(3), 164.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Education Demographic and Geographic
Estimates. ACS School District Profile 2017-21.
https://nces.ed.gov/Programs/Edge/ACSDashboard/4206090
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2015). Place-value concepts - intensive intervention.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs,
National Center on Intensive Intervention.
https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Place-Value_Concepts_508.pdf
Odom, J. (2023, January 3). How covid-19 affected students' brains. The Educator's Room.
https://theeducatorsroom.com/covid-19-impact-student-brains-neuroscience-traumaeducators/
Önal, H., &; Altiner, E. Ç. (2021). The level of 7- and 8-years old children understanding of the
place value concept. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(4), 28–52.
https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v8no4a28
138

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2013, January). Academic standards for mathematics state board of education. Pennsylvania Department of Education.
https://www.stateboard.education.pa.gov/Documents/Regulations%20and%20Statements
/State%20Academic%20Standards/PA%20Core%20Math%20Standards.pdf
Pincus, R., Hannor-Walker, T., Wright, L., & Justice, J. (2020). COVID-19’s effect on students:
How school counselors rise to the rescue. NASSP Bulletin, 104(4), 241–256. https://doiorg.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1177/0192636520975866
Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on
teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133–141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481
Rutherford, K. (2015, April 15). What do the standards for mathematical practice mean to you?.
What Do the Standards for Mathematical Practice Mean to You? - National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Publications/TCM-blog/Blog/What-Dothe-Standards-for-Mathematical-Practice-Mean-toYou_/#:~:text=These%20eight%20practices%20describe%20the,and%20enduring%20und
erstanding%20of%20mathematics.
Sances, M. W., & Campbell, A. L. (2021). State policy and mental health outcomes under
COVID-19. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 46(5), 811–830. https://doiorg.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1215/03616878-9155991
Sanz Ponce, R., López-Luján, E., & Giménez-Beut, J. A. (2022). Pandemic, poverty and
education: A challenge for the sustainable development goals. Policy Futures in
Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221112542
Savvas Learning Company. (2023). Savvas realize. Savvas Realize - Savvas Learning Company.
139

https://www.savvasrealize.com/
Savvas Learning Company. (2023). EnVision math - diagnostic assessment – savvas learning
company. EnVision Math - Diagnostic Assessment – Savvas Learning Company.
https://www.savvas.com/index.cfm?locator=PS3gKo
School of Education and Human Sciences, University of Kansas. (2023, April 25).
Understanding response to intervention (RTI) and multi-tiered system of support
(MTSS). University of Kansas School of Education and Human Services.
https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/what-is-response-tointervention#:~:text=Response%20to%20Intervention%20(RTI)%20is,common%20for%
20students%20with%20disabilities.
Screencastify, LLC. (2023). Screen recording and video editing. Screencastify.
https://www.screencastify.com/
Seesaw Learning, Inc. (2023). Elementary learning experience platform. Seesaw.
https://web.seesaw.me/
Solution Tree Press. (2012). Table 2.2: Mathematical practices—look-fors as classroom
indicators. Common Core Mathematics in a PLC Work.
https://www.debbiewaggoner.com/uploads/1/2/9/9/12998469/9_table_2.2mathematicalpra
ctices--look-forsasclassroomindicators.pdf
The Chocolate Teacher. (2021, August 16). Teaching Resources & Lesson Plans. TPT.
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/
The Nation’s Report Card. (2022). NAEP report card: Mathematics. The Nation’s Report Card.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/?grade=4
Unser, C. (2017). A Study on The Positives and Negatives of Using Technology In The
140

Classroom (thesis). Undergraduate Honors College Theses.
https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/18
USAFacts. (2022, November 4). Covid disrupted decades of progress in math and reading.
USAFacts. https://usafacts.org/articles/covid-disrupted-decades-of-progress-in-math-andreading/
Vanderbilt University. (2023). What is data-based individualization?. IRIS Center.
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/dbi1/cresource/q1/p01/
Vassar, A. (2017). The use of manipulative materials in early place value instruction: a cognitive
load perspective (dissertation). http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/19943
ViewSonic Corporation. (2020, February 25). 5 disadvantages of technology in the classroom
(and how to overcome them). ViewSonic.
https://www.viewsonic.com/library/education/5-disadvantages-of-technology-in-theclassroom-and-how-to-overcome-them/
Western Governors University. (2019, October 3). Impact of technology on kids today (and
tomorrow). https://www.wgu.edu/blog/impact-technology-kids-today-tomorrow1910.html
White, E. (2022, January 28). Place value – how important is it really? Maths Australia.
https://mathsaustralia.com.au/math-u-see/is-place-valueimportant/#:~:text=Place%20Value%20is%20the%20most,as%20a%20basic%20concept
%20first.
Wilkinson, M. (2017). An Investigation of Place Value Understanding in Year 2 Children
(dissertation).
Williams, C. (2018, May 4). Teaching to Mastery. Center for Student Achievement Solutions.
https://www.studentachievementsolutions.com/teaching-to141

mastery/#:~:text=Student%20performance%20can%20be%20evaluated,just%20a%20sug
gested%20starting%20point.
Zirogiannis, B. (2021). #Booklove in the time of COVID: How school librarians have worked to
maximize students’ access to books during a pandemic. Literacy Today (2411-7862),
38(6), 44–47.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (2023). Zoom online video meetings. Zoom.
https://explore.zoom.us/en/lp/videomeetings/?creative=641116065753&keyword=best+virtual+meeting+platforms&matchty
pe=e&network=s&device=c&zcid=11933&utm_id=19247167429_641116065753&gad=
1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt4mCwZ_r_wIV0vLICh1qyw_VEAAYASAAEgK7J_D_BwE

142

APPENDIXES

Appendix A
Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form A

143

144

145

146

(Savvas Learning Company, 2023)

147

Appendix B
Savvas EnVision 2nd Grade Diagnostic Assessment Form B

148

149

150

151

(Savvas Learning Company, 2023)

152

Appendix C
Savvas EnVision Independent Record Form- Grade 2

Appendix D

153

CITI Training Certification

154

Appendix E
Superintendent Approval Letter

155

Appendix F
Parent/Guardian Phone Consent Script

156

Appendix G
IRB Application Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

157

158

159

160

161

Appendix H
Researcher Created Weekly Assessments

Assessment #1

162

Assessment #2

163

Assessment #3

164

Assessment #4

165

Assessment #5

166

Assessment #6

167

Appendix I
Games and Puzzles

Researcher-Created Ice Cream Addition-

Researcher-Created Addition Mini-Bowling-

Students were encouraged to stack the ice cream
scoops on top of the cone in small groups of up
to three students. As they were able to stack the
scoops, students were to add the numbers
written on the scoops. Some groups were able to
add two numbers, three numbers, four numbers,
or even five numbers, depending on how steady
their stack of ice cream scoops were before they
tumbled.

Students were encouraged to use the mini
bowling ball to knock down as many pins as
they could. Students would then add up the
numbers written on the bowling pins that they
knocked down. Students could add up to nine
single-digit numbers at a time in a small group
of up to three students.

168

Basic Fact Puzzle (The Chocolate Teacher,
2021)Students were encouraged to solve the addition
facts first, then glue the matching card with the
appropriate sum on top of the fact worksheet.
This created the pet shop animal picture. Puzzle
pieces were cut out and mixed up prior to
student engagement to create difficulty. This
activity was utilized during the four-day week
of the study, as students were assessed and
engaged in the puzzle activity within the same
day to meet the study’s schedule expectations.

169