Direct Instruction in Math Word Problems: Students with Learning Disabilities. [Strategy and sequence vs. strategy only]
Wilson, Cynthia L.; Sindelar, Paul T. (1991). Exceptional Children, v57 n6 p512-19 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ428599
-
examining42Students, grades2-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Direct instruction in math problem solving strategies and sequencing–Wilson (1991))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 and subtraction word problems |
Direct instruction in math problem solving strategies and sequencing–Wilson (1991) vs. Direct instruction in math problem strategies–Wilson (1991) |
0 Days |
Strategy + Sequence vs. Strategy only;
|
16.42 |
15.83 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Addition and subtraction word problems |
Direct instruction in math problem solving strategies and sequencing–Wilson (1991) vs. Direct instruction in math problem strategies–Wilson (1991) |
2 Weeks |
Strategy + Sequence vs. Strategy only;
|
17.48 |
15.00 |
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: 21%
Male: 79% -
- 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
Florida
-
Race Other or unknown 52% White 48%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in nine elementary schools in a medium-sized school district in Florida. The contrast of interest for this review took place in six of the nine schools.
Study sample
Students were in grades 2 through 5 and were all in part-time or full-time special education. Most students were male (79 percent). Forty-eight percent of students were white and 52 percent were nonwhite.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received both direct instruction in problem solving strategies with problems sequenced according to type. The direct instruction strategy employed the "big number" concept (Silbert, Carnine, and Stine 1981) in which students are taught to determine whether a problem gives the big number of a fact family. If the problem gives the big number, it will require subtraction. If it does not, the problem will require addition. Students were then taught to apply that concept to word problems. For the sequencing component, students practiced problems in order of grouping by type (simple action problems, classification problems, complex problems, and comparison problems) for both boardwork and seatwork. Thus, the strategy plus sequence group received instruction in the "big number" concept and practiced the four types of problems in sequence with different types on different days. The strategy only group were given instruction in the "big number" concept but received all four types of practice problems each day. Each of the groups received 14 lessons that were 30 minutes each over the course of 3 weeks. The lessons were scripted and identical sets of word problems were used an in both groups.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received direct instruction in strategies only. The direct instruction strategy employed the "big number" concept (Silbert, Carnine, and Stine 1981) in which students are taught to determine whether a problem gives the big number of a fact family. If the problem gives the big number, it will require subtraction. If it does not, the problem will require addition. Students were then taught to apply that concept to word problems. The comparison group was therefore given instruction in the "big number" concept but received all four types of practice problems each day (they were not sequenced). Each of the groups received 14 lessons that were 30 minutes each over the course of 3 weeks. The lessons were scripted and identical sets of word problems were used in both groups.
Support for implementation
In the 2 weeks before the study began, the 7 trainers attended 5 sessions that were each 1 hour long. The experimenter demonstrated the lessons for each group using role-playing techniques. Each trainer then performed demonstrations as if they were the instructor. To participate in the study, the trainers needed to score above an 80% on three consecutive demonstrations.
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 with 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: 16%
Male: 84% -
Race Other or unknown 55% White 45%
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).