Jitendra, Asha K.; Harwell, Michael R.; Im, Soo-hyun; Karl, Stacy R.; Slater, Susan C. (2019). Journal of Educational Psychology, v111 n6 p1045-1062. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1223177
Reviewed: July 2021
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GMADE Process and Application subtest |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.89 |
12.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportional Problem Solving (PPS) test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.48 |
12.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportional Problem Solving (PPS) test, short-response subscale |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.25 |
1.55 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Proportional Problem Solving (PPS) test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
14.29 |
12.59 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Proportional Problem Solving (PPS) test, short-response subscale |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
1.95 |
1.56 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 8% | |
| Other or unknown | 31% | |
| White | 56% |
| Hispanic | 26% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 74% |
The study took place in 36 middle schools in 5 school districts in one western and one southeastern state. The majority of schools were located in suburban (31) areas and also included a few urban (2) and rural schools (3).
A total of 1,411 students in grade 7 mathematics classes were included in the study. The 1,411 students in middle schools were taught by 59 teachers in 36 schools. Approximately 56 percent of the students were White, 8 percent were Black, 5 percent were Asian, and 31 percent did not report race. Approximately 26 percent of students were Hispanic and 24 percent were receiving free/reduced price lunch. About 50 percent of the students were male, 49 percent were female, and 1 percent did not report gender. In addition, there were 9 percent of students who were English learners and 9 percent of students had an unspecified disability.
Students in the intervention group received schema-based instruction (SBI), a mathematical program designed to assist students in their problem-solving reasoning that involves proportional relationships. The program consists of 21 lessons that were completed in approximately 30 days. The first 10 lessons focused on the meaning of ratios, equivalent ratios, and rates and solving these in the context of scale drawings in word problems. The second set of 10 lessons focused on percent (including fractions and decimals as alternative representations) and solving word problems involving part–whole comparisons, percent of change, including problems involving sales taxes, discounts, tips, and simple interest, as well multistep adjustment percent of change problems. The last lesson reviewed all of the lessons. SBI was provided during regularly scheduled grade 7 mathematics classes. Instruction was administered daily to the whole class for 6 weeks, averaging 45 minutes per session.
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual grade 7 mathematics instruction. Topics discussed included the same content taught in the intervention classes but using practice standards (for example, look for and make use of structure, model with mathematics) identified by the school district. Similar to the intervention group, instruction was administered daily for 6 weeks, averaging 45 minutes per session. However, teachers assigned to the comparison condition did not have access to SBI materials that were available to teachers in the intervention condition.
An expert in problem solving outside of the research team provided a 2-day SBI training to teachers assigned to the intervention condition. The training familiarized teachers with the lessons and scope of the program, taught the critical SBI practices, and provided teaching material.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Jitendra, Asha K.; Harwell, Michael R.; Im, Soo-hyun; Karl, Stacy R.; Slater, Susan C. (2018). Using Regression Discontinuity to Estimate the Effects of a Tier 1 Research-Based Mathematics Program in Seventh-Grade.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube