Fuchs, Lynn S.; Seethaler, Pamela M.; Powell, Sarah R.; Hamlett, Carol L.; Fletcher, Jack M. (2008). Exceptional Children, v74 n2 p155-173 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ817525
Reviewed: April 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation |
Schema-broadening tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2008 vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.69 |
0.89 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed double-digit addition |
Schema-broadening tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2008 vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.19 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-developed subtraction fact fluency |
Schema-broadening tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2008 vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.44 |
2.58 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed story problems |
Schema-broadening tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2008 vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.27 |
-1.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 56% | |
| Other or unknown | 20% | |
| White | 24% |
| Hispanic | 14% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 86% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 89% | |
| Other or unknown | 11% |
The study took place in an urban southeastern school district. The classrooms were Tier 1 general education third-grade classrooms.
The study focused on students with mathematics and reading difficulties. The analytic sample of 25 students was 44 percent male and 56 percent female. The majority (89 percent) received subsidized lunch, and 9 percent had a learning disability. The racial breakdown was 56 percent black, 24 percent white, 14 percent Hispanic, and 6 percent other.
The intervention condition received preventative tutoring using an explicit schema-broadening tutoring protocol that focused on word problem solving skills. The tutoring instruction covered three problem types: total problems, in which two quantities combine into a total; difference problems, in which bigger and smaller quantities are compared to find the difference; and change problems, in which starting quantities are increased or decreased to find a new quantity. The tutoring began with two weeks of introductory sessions, with tutors focusing on foundational skills for solving addition and subtraction problems, such as using a number line, solving two digit problems, solving algebraic equations, and using strategies such as making sure answers make sense, lining up numbers before adding/subtracting, and labeling work. Following the introduction, there were 3 one-week units about the three problem types. The tutoring instruction taught students to understand the structure of the three problem types, recognize problems as belonging to those problem types, solve the problem type, and transfer their problem-solving approaches to new problems. Tutors explicitly taught students how to solve problems with missing information in the first, second or third position of a problem, and how to transfer relevant and irrelevant information into graphs, charts, and pictures. In the last week of the intervention, tutors implemented a review unit that addressed all three problem types. Each session involved three activities: (1) basic fact flash cards in which the tutor provided corrective feedback; (2) 12-17 minute schema-broadening instruction in which tutors taught a three step process for problem solving: run through the problem (read it), underlining the question, naming the problem type (RUN strategy); (3) daily review in which students had 2 minutes to answer 14 problems. Throughout all lessons, the tutors used reinforcement strategies (such as earning tokens for correct responses that could be redeemed for prizes). Students were tutored one-on-one outside of their regular classroom for 20-30 minute sessions over the course of 12 weeks, with 3 sessions per week. The tutoring was provided by 4 graduate students at a local university.
The comparison condition in the study was the continuation of regular classroom Tier 1 mathematics instruction. Teachers used Math Advantage (Burton & Maletsky, 1999) and delivered explicit instruction of the same problem types as the intervention condition; however, students were not taught how to sort problems into problem types or broaden their schema. The comparison condition used teacher-guided worked examples, group practice, independent work, and homework.
Lesson scripts for the intervention condition were used, though they were not delivered verbatim to allow for different teaching styles.
Reviewed: February 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Subtraction Fact Fluency |
Tutoring vs. Business as usual |
12 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
9.69 |
7.74 |
No |
-- | |
|
Double digit addition |
Tutoring vs. Business as usual |
12 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
17.56 |
14.58 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study took place in a southeastern urban school district within the United States. The study included participants in 29 classrooms across eight different schools.
The intervention sample (n = 16) was comprised of 50% male, 50% African American, 31.3% Caucasian, 12.5% Hispanic, 6.3% Biracial students with 93.8% receiving subsidized lunch. Additionally, 6.3% of the sample were English language learners. The comparison group was comprised of 36.8% male, 63.2% African American, 15.8% Caucasian, 15.8% Hispanic, 5.3% Biracial students with 84.2% receiving subsidized lunch. Additionally, 10.5% of the sample were English language learners.
This tutoring intervention involved the use of local university students who acted as tutors for students in grade three. Tutors followed a set of materials and scripts to help implement the procedure. Intervention students were pulled out of their regular classroom for a one-to-one session with their tutor. Each session lasted 20-30 minutes and occurred three times per week for 12 weeks. Tutoring provided instruction on foundational skills for word problem solving and then followed by lessons different word problem types. The final week of tutoring was a review unit addressing the three word problem types covered in the previous sessions. Tutoring included the use of flash card activity, the schema-broadening instruction lesson, and a final review. Students earned tokens during the session to reinforce correct responses. These tokens were traded in weekly for prizes. All sessions were delivered via a script to ensure consistency of information, but scripts were not read. Treatment fidelity was measured using audiotapes.
Students in the comparison condition remained in the classroom and were not pulled out for supplemental instruction. Students in the comparison group were still receiving Tier 1 general education instruction though. This included the teachers using Math Advantage, which is a teacher-guided problem-solving instruction curriculum. However, these students did not receive the one-on-one tutoring sessions like the intervention students.
Treatment fidelity was assessed for 20.3% of the sessions. Each session was audiotaped. The mean percentage of points addressed via fidelity was 99.72 (SD = 0.01). No additional support for implementation was not provided in the report.
Reviewed: April 2009
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 57% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 23% |
| Hispanic | 23% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 77% |
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
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools Practice Guide