The Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on Number Combination Skill in At-Risk First Graders
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Hamlet, Carol L.; Powell, Sarah R.; Capizzi, Andrea M.; Seethaler, Pamela M. (2006). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v39 n5 p467-475. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ757979
-
examining33Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Computer-assisted instruction—Fuchs et al. (2006))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Addition Fluency |
Computer-assisted instruction—Fuchs et al. (2006) vs. Intervention |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.19 |
1.88 |
No |
-- |
|
|
Subtraction Fact Fluency |
Computer-assisted instruction—Fuchs et al. (2006) vs. Intervention |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
3.44 |
3.47 |
No |
-- |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arithmetic Story Problems |
Computer-assisted instruction—Fuchs et al. (2006) vs. Intervention |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
1.69 |
1.94 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
15% English language learners -
Female: 37%
Male: 63% -
Suburban, Urban
-
Race Black 61% Other or unknown 21% White 18% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 9 first-grade classrooms in three Title I public schools within a metropolitan school system.
Study sample
Eligible first-grade students were identified by their teachers as having low competence in both reading and mathematics. The sample was predominantly black and most students received free- or reduced-priced lunch. Three students had a been identified by the district as having a speech language impairment (2 of the students were in the math CAI condition and 1 was in the spelling CAI condition). One of these students received additional speech language services for 20 minutes a week, another received similar services for 60 minutes. The third student received resource room services for 5 hours each week. There were five students that were English language learners, each of whom received one hour of services per week on language development.
Intervention Group
The intervention was computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in math, which the authors referred to as FLASH. There were 50 10-minute sessions implemented three times a week over 18 weeks. For the math intervention, the computer program showed a horizontal addition or subtraction number combination (e.g., 1+1=2 or 3-1=2), the combination was then removed from the screen and the students were asked to type it from memory. If students answered incorrectly, the program would show the correct response on the screen and ask students to enter the correct response. They earned points and tokens with each correct answer; at the end, the program showed the student their final score. The students were given 1.5 seconds to answer the first item in the session. For each incorrect answer, the time would increase by 0.3 seconds for each missed question in the session. The difficulty of the items increased as the session progressed. In the first 2-4 weeks, the program only presented addition number combinations; later weeks included a mixture of subtraction and addition problems. The number combinations were considered "mastered" by the program when students answered them correctly twice within one session on the first try. In later weeks, the program would show mastered number combinations for review; if students got them wrong, the program would take that number combinations off the mastered list. The number of number combinations that students saw in each session varied by the speed at which they worked. The faster students moved through the number combinations, the more number combinations they saw. For 7 classrooms, the intervention was implemented in pairs on classroom computers or laptops provided by the research team during non-instructional time in the normal classroom. In 2 classrooms, the intervention was implemented classwide in the school's computer lab.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received computer-assisted implemented similarly to math CAI (the intervention condition), but focused on presenting spelling words (instead of number combinations). The words came from the first 200 words from the Dolch high-frequency word list, for pre-primer, primer, and first grade. The words were presented from most frequently used to least. The number of number combinations that students saw in each session varied by the speed at which they worked. The faster students moved through the number combinations, the more number combinations they saw.
Support for implementation
Research assistants oversaw the implementation of the CAI math and CAI spelling conditions.
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2009
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools Practice Guide- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
15% English language learners -
Female: 37%
Male: 63% -
Urban
-
Race Black 61% Other or unknown 6% White 19% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 75%
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).