In our response to Clements and Sarama (2017), we address the 5 issues that they identify as criticisms of our Research Commentary (Kitchen & Berk, 2016). As in our original commentary, we highlight concerns we have regarding the delivery of CAI programs and potential misuses of CAI, particularly at Title I schools that largely serve historically marginalized student groups. Specifically, we concentrate on how CAI may contribute to underserved students generally experiencing mathematics in impoverished ways that do not align with reforms being advocated by the mathematics education community. We also argue that Clements and Sarama appear to dismiss or ignore our central argument that some CAI programs are not designed or are not being used to support the development of students' mathematical reasoning and fluency.
Richard Kitchen, College of Education, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sarabeth Berk, Regent Administrative Center, University of Colorado Boulder, 99 UCB, Suite 330, Boulder, CO 80309; Sarabeth.Berk@Colorado.edu