Effects of Mathematical Word Problem Solving by Students At Risk or With Mild Disabilities. [Word problem instruction vs. control]
Jitendra, Asha K.; Griffin, Cynthia C.; McGoey, Kara; Gardill, M. Cathleen; Bhat, Preetha; Riley, Tamar (1998). Journal of Educational Research, v91 n6 p345-55. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ571133
-
examining34Students, grades2-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: October 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word problem-solving criterion test (Jitendra) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.59 |
9.71 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Word problem-solving criterion test (Jitendra) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
11 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.24 |
9.47 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Work problem generalization test (Jitendra) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
12.12 |
9.47 |
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
Northeast, South
-
Race Black 12% White 82% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four classrooms at four public schools in the northeastern and southeastern United States. The students were in grades 2 through 5.
Study sample
The sample was split evenly on gender. Students were in grades 2 through 5, but most of the students were in grade 4 (21 of 34). Most of the students were white (28 of 34) and a small number were black (4) and Hispanic (2). Half of the sample was learning disabled, and some were classified as educable mentally retarded (5 of 34) and seriously emotionally disturbed (3).
Intervention Group
The schema strategy was taught in two discrete steps for solving change, compare, and group word problems. Instruction used schema diagrams for each type of problem. In the first step for solving words problems, students were taught to identify the features of the schema and checking that the schema elements were present. Second, instruction emphasized designing a solution strategy and then selecting and executing the correct arithmetic operation. Instruction occurred in two phases. During the first phase, students read story situations and mapped the situations to the schemas (there was no missing information in the studies so students did not have to solve a problem). In the second phase, the instructor read word problems out loud, using questions to guide students in identifying the underlying semantic features of the problem and translating that to the schema diagrams. The instructors were four doctoral students and two master's degree students in special education and school psychology. Throughout, the instructors used explicit instruction principles, such as providing detailed expiations, providing corrective feedback, and allowing students time for independent practice. The instruction was given in a quiet room in the school building in small groups of 3 to 6 students. Lessons were 40-45 minutes in length and the total number of lessons ranged from 17-20.
Comparison Group
For the comparison condition, students received instruction derived from Addison Wesley Mathematics basal program. As with the intervention condition, there were two phases. During the first phase, the instructor presented the Think Math activities as specified in the basal program. In the second phase, instruction used a five-step checklist procedure to solve word problems (i.e. understanding the problem, finding data within the problem, planning (including deciding which operation to use) by guessing and checking, computing the answer, checking that the answer made sense). The instructors were the same four doctoral students and two master's degree students who taught the intervention condition. The instruction was delivered in the same way as well. It was given in a quiet room in the school building in small groups of 3 to 6 students. Lessons were 40-45 minutes in length and the total number of lessons ranged from 17-20.
Support for implementation
Instructors were provided with scripts for each of the conditions as well as strategy note sheets. The strategy note sheets contained the key elements of each condition.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Schema-based instruction)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Problem Generalization Test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
20 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.71 |
9.47 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Word problem-solving criterion test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.48 |
9.81 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Word problem-solving criterion test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
20 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.12 |
9.58 |
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
Northeast, South
-
Race Black 12% White 82% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Study Details
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.
Improving Mathematical Problem Solving in Grades 4 Through 8
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2012
Improving Mathematical Problem Solving in Grades 4 Through 8 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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Race Black 12% White 82% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2009
- 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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Race Black 12% White 82% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
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).