Xin, Yan Ping; Jitendra, Asha K.; Deatline-Buchman, Andria (2005). Journal of Special Education, v39 n3 p181-192. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ722297
Reviewed: June 2019
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word problems (Author-created) |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
83.41 |
47.55 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 14% | |
| Other or unknown | 55% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 45% |
The study took place in a single middle school in the northeastern United States.
All students in the study had learning problems: 18 of the 22 students were identified by the school as having a learning disability, 1 had a severe emotional disorder, and 3 were at risk for mathematics failure. Participant selection was based on the following criteria: (1) teacher identification of students experiencing substantial problems in mathematics word problem solving and (2) a score of 70% or lower on the pretest, which involved multiplication and division word problem solving.
The schema-based instruction intervention condition included several components. First, students received instruction in recognizing the differences between multiplicative compare and proportion problems. Students were taught to identify the problem type, and use a schematic diagram to represent the problem. Then, students transformed the diagram to a math sentence and solve the problem. The instruction focused on two types of word problems: multiplicative compare problems and proportion problems. Sessions focused first on one type of problem, then on the other, and then the two types were mixed. Students first learned to identify problem types/structures and represent the problem using a schematic diagram, then learned to solve for an unknown quantity in word problems. For each problem type, teachers emphasized the salient features of that problem schema, and students received a prompt sheet that described these features and four strategy steps: (1) reading to understand, (2) identifying the problem and representing it using a schema diagram, (3) transforming the diagram into a math sentence and solving the problem, and (4) checking. Students received instruction in 1-hour sessions, 3-4 times a week, for a total of 12 sessions. The first four sessions focused on multiplicative compare problems, the next four on proportion problems, and the final four on both types.
Students in the comparison group received general strategy instruction. They received the same amount of instruction from the same teachers as the intervention group. Instruction for both groups included explicit instruction, followed by teacher-guided practice and independent student work, with corrective feedback and additional modeling as needed during practice sessions. Both groups were taught a four-step general problem solving procedure of (1) reading to understand, (2) representing the problem, (3) solving the problem, and (4) checking. However, steps 2 and 3 differed for the two conditions. While students in the intervention group were taught in step 2 to identify the problem type and use the schema diagram to represent it, those in the comparison group were taught to use other methods, such as drawing a semi-concrete picture, to represent the problem.
The first author developed teaching scripts for both conditions and piloted them prior to using them in the study. Instructors received two 1-hour training sessions to familiarize them with lesson formats, the suggested teacher wording, and lesson materials when implementing the two instructional approaches. A checklist of critical instruction steps was developed to assess adherence to instruction strategy. Fidelity of implementation was assessed by a doctoral student for about 30% of lessons. The researchers provided feedback to instructors on fidelity whenever it fell below 85%. Overall fidelity was 100% for the comparison group and 94% for the intervention group.
Reviewed: April 2015
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 | 14% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 45% |
Reviewed: May 2012
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 | 14% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 45% |
Reviewed: September 2010
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 | 14% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 45% |
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 | 14% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 54% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 46% |
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
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students Practice Guide