Effects of Small-Group Tutoring with and without Validated Classroom Instruction on At-Risk Students' Math Problem Solving: Are Two Tiers of Prevention Better than One? [Word problem tutoring in Tier 2 (with or without word problem intervention in Tier 1) vs. no word problem tutoring in Tier 2 (with or without word problem intervention in Tier 1)]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Craddock, Caitlin; Hollenbeck, Kurstin N.; Hamlett, Carol L.; Schatschneider, Christopher (2008). Journal of Educational Psychology, v100 n3 p491-509. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ807859
-
examining243Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math problem solving - immediate, near, & far transfer |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention);
|
33.87 |
19.52 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math problem solving - immediate transfer |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention);
|
58.64 |
33.42 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Math problem solving - near transfer |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention);
|
28.87 |
15.06 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Math problem solving - far transfer |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention);
|
14.10 |
10.07 |
Yes |
|
||
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.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 64% Other or unknown 8% White 28% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Grade 3 classrooms across four academic years in a metropolitan school district of the Southeast United States. SBI classroom instruction was implemented at the classroom level, and SBI tutoring was implemented in small groups.
Study sample
Of the 243 AR students in this contrast, 46 percent were female, 75 percent were eligible for subsidized lunch, 64 percent were African American, 28 percent were European America, and nine percent identified as other. Also, seven percent were Hispanic, two percent were English language learners and 12 percent were in special education. All students in this contrast were at-risk for mathematics difficulties.
Intervention Group
The intervention in this contrast (Tier 2 SBI tutoring) included instruction in small groups of 2 to 4 students. Three 20-30 minute tutoring sessions were conducted each week (totaling roughly 940 minutes across all session). The intervention took place after the general math problem solving unit was taught in the regular classroom. The content in the Tier 2 intervention mirrored the content in the Tier 1 classroom, but the Tier 2 intervention was more targeted on the most difficult concepts, used more manipulatives, included more opportunities for scaffolding to support student learning, and taught students self-regulation strategies. The sessions had four 3-week units, with each unit addressing a specific problem type (shopping list, buying bag, half, and pictograph). Each unit began with 5 sessions of instruction that covered the underlying concepts and structural features of the problem type and used concrete objects. The students and instructor would explain together why and how they used each step in a solution strategy. Over time the students worked on problems independently. In sessions 6-9, the problems now varied in cover story and had transfer features (different question or irrelevant information). Self-regulation strategies were included in the intervention during some of the cohorts but not all. Research assistants served as the tutors.
Comparison Group
Students in the control group for this contrast did not receive SBI Tier 2 tutoring. Some of them did receive SBI Tier 1 classroom instruction (but some did not).
Support for implementation
All research assistants (RAs) received a one day training session that provided with instructions, demonstrations, and scripted materials to study. RAs then practiced in pairs before conducting one lesson for a project coordinator who graded the delivery of the instruction. RAs were also given a three-hour training before the start of each unit, and all sessions were audiotaped from which RAs received corrective feedback.
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.
-
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
Race Black 42% Other or unknown 7% White 41% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10%
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).