Explicit Instruction in Mathematics Problem Solving.
Darch, Craig; And Others (1984). Journal of Educational Research, v77 n6 p351-59 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ303598
-
examining73Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed story problems posttest |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. Intervention |
1 Day |
Aggregated sample: Explicit (fixed and extended) vs. Basal (fixed and extended);
|
22.47 |
16.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Study-developed posttest in Darch et al. |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: Explicit (fixed and extended) vs. Basal (fixed and extended);
|
21.80 |
16.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Study-developed posttest in Darch et al. |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Day |
Explicit fixed vs. Basal fixed;
|
22.49 |
16.55 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed story problems posttest |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Explicit extended vs. Basal extended;
|
22.58 |
16.58 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed story problems posttest |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Explicit fixed vs. Basal fixed;
|
22.35 |
16.58 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed story problems maintenance test |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
10 Days |
Explicit extended vs. Basal extended;
|
21.65 |
14.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed story problems maintenance test |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
10 Days |
Aggregated sample: Explicit (fixed and extended) vs. Basal (fixed and extended);
|
19.59 |
15.87 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed story problems maintenance test |
Explicit translation strategy—Darch et al. 1984 vs. (Not applicable) |
10 Days |
Explicit fixed vs. Basal fixed;
|
18.93 |
17.46 |
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.
-
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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
Oregon
-
Race White 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in six regular 4th grade classrooms in Oregon.
Study sample
The students were in 4th grade, and were almost all white and middle-class. The gender mix was roughly equal. Students were skill deficient but the authors did not note any specific learning or other disabilities.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition was the use of an explicit translation strategy by teachers to teach students how to translate concrete problems into mathematical equations. In this review, the intervention condition includes both youth in the explicit extended and explicit fixed groups. The groups were the same except that youth in the extended practice group (n=19) received up to 8 extra practice lessons. The intervention focused on multiplication and division word problems. The method focused on modeling a step-by-step strategy and on identifying the appropriate operation for translation of a word problem. The instructor provided corrective feedback on specific errors. The instructor also covered the number families and relationships between multiplication and division. All students in this condition received 11 lessons that were 30 minutes each. Of the 30 minutes, 15 minutes were spent on teacher-led instruction and 15 minutes were spent with students independently working on story problem worksheets. Students were taught in small groups of 2 to 4 students by 4 graduate students with previous teaching experience.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was a basal instructional method that was developed based on the four state-adopted mathematics textbooks used in elementary classrooms in Oregon. In this review, the comparison condition includes both youth in the basal extended and basal fixed groups. The groups were the same except that youth in the extended practice group (n=19) received up to 8 extra practice lessons. The basal instruction included a discussion designed to motivate students to engage with the content and a presentation of approaches for problem-solving. The system for approaching problem-solving strategies was less specific than in the treatment condition. Students in this condition received 11 lessons that were 30 minutes each. Of the 30 minutes, 15 minutes were spent on teacher-led instruction and 15 minutes were spent with students independently working on story problem worksheets. Students were taught in small groups of 2 to 4 students by 4 graduate students with previous teaching experience.
Support for implementation
The teachers were trained in the lessons for each of the experimental groups over a two-week period using role-playing techniques. They received feedback and errors in their practice were corrected by the experimenter. Teachers in both groups were given semi-scripted manuals that outlined the expected content and teacher-student interactions.
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
Race White 100%
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).