Setting
The study is set in four public school classrooms in the northeastern and southeastern United States.
Study sample
"Of the 34 students who participated in the intervention, 28 (14 intervention, 14 comparison) were white, 4 (2 intervention, 2 comparison) were black, and 2 (1 intervention, 1 comparison) were Hispanic.
25 of the 34 had designations of being mildly disabled (learning disability, educably mentally retarded, or seriously emotionally disturbed). 17 (8 intervention, 9 comparison) were classified either as having mild learning disabilities, 5 (2 intervention, 3 comparison) as educably mentally retarded, and 3 (2 intervention, 1 comparison) as seriously emotionally disturbed. The 9 (5 intervention, 4 comparison) students remaining included low-performing at-risk students with math difficulty. The average age of participants in both conditions was 10.3 years. Among the 34 students in the study sample, 21 of them were 4th graders. Seven of them were 5th graders, five were 3rd graders, and one was a 2nd grader (see Table 1, p. 348). In the intervention group, 10 students were female and 7 were male. In the comparison group, the opposite occurred: 10 were male and 7 were female."
Intervention Group
" The intervention was delivered by pairs of trained investigators across small group (3-6 participants) training sessions, each of which lasted between 40 and 45 minutes (depending on how long the class period was at the participants' school). The intervention lasted from 17 to 20 days. Investigators used scripts when delivering the intervention.
Students were instructed on three word problem types. These word problem can be described as: 1) Change story situations (e.g., ""Mario had 58 stamps. He bought 24 more stamps and now has 82 stamps.""), 2) Group story situations (e.g., ""Ken sold 37 candy bars and Art sold 53 candy bars. Ken and Art together sold 90 candy bars""), and 3) Compare story situations (e.g., ""Michael has 43 records and Emily has 70. Emily has 27 more records than Michael.""). The schema strategy was taught in two steps: 1) How to identify features of the semantic relations and determine whether important elements of the problem schema (i.e., change, group, and compare) are present, and 2) How to design and execute a solution strategy for solving the problem. These two steps were taught for each of the three word problem types. Step 1 was achieved using teacher-led instruction and modeling. Step 2 was achieved using teacher-led instruction, facilitated questioning and via addressing student misconceptions as they arose. Students completed worksheets at the end of each session. Immediate performance-related feedback was provided.
Students in the intervention group completed the same number of word problems as the comparison group each day, and also heard about the usefulness of their instruction based on their performance and received encouragement about solving future word problems. The intervention group participated in interview protocols based on strategy questionnaires developed by the researcher about the usefulness of the strategy and how they would recommend it, each day."
Comparison Group
"The comparison straw-man-style condition was delivered by pairs of trained investigators across small group (3-6 participants) training sessions, each of which lasted between 40 and 45 minutes (depending on how long the class period was at the participants' school). The intervention lasted from 17 to 20 days. Investigators used scripts when delivering the intervention. Instruction was adapted from the Addison-Wesley Mathematics basal mathematics program. Students completed Think Math activities. Word problem instruction was administered via a 5-step checklist procedure.
The comparison group, which received traditional instruction using basal texts, had the same duration and intensity of sessions and days that the intervention group had. Instruction occurred in 40- to 45 minute training sessions with small groups of 3 to 6 students, and delivered over a period of 17-20 days by pairs of trained investigators. Trained investigators alternated across conditions to reduce any effects due to instructors, and observations were conducted of 30% of the lessons and evaluated for treatment fidelity. Students in the comparison group completed the same number of word problems as the intervention group each day, and also heard about the usefulness of their instruction based on their performance and received encouragement about solving future word problems. Like the intervention group, the comparison group also participated in interview protocols based on strategy questionnaires developed by the researcher about the usefulness of the strategy and how they would recommend it, each day."
Support for implementation
The intervention and comparison condition content was delivered by four trained doctoral students and two trained master's degree students. The supports for implementation included various materials for teachers to deliver instruction to either group. Instructors in each group received examiner scripts, strategy note sheets, interview/strategy questionnaires, and fidelity of treatment checklists, tailored to their group condition. Note sheets provided steps for finding the total of the three different problem types and guidelines for addition or subtraction in problems.