Improving At-Risk Learners' Understanding of Fractions
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Schumacher, Robin F.; Long, Jessica; Namkung, Jessica; Hamlett, Carol L.; Cirino, Paul T.; Jordan, Nancy C.; Siegler, Robert; Gersten, Russell; Changas, Paul (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, v105 n3 p683-700. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054396
-
examining259Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2020
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2010 Fraction Battery: Fraction Calculations |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
9.07 |
7.51 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
12.20 |
11.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress - Part-Whole questions |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.79 |
5.36 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2010 Fraction Battery: Comparing Fractions |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
12.73 |
7.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Fraction Number Line |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
-0.20 |
-0.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress - Measurement questions |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.62 |
4.68 |
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.
-
10% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Race Black 62% Other or unknown 4% White 44% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 81%
Study Details
Setting
Sample Alignment: Study participants are students who scored below the 35th percentile on an assessment of skill in whole-number calculation. A previous version of the study looked at students who were between the 0th and 17th percentiles and students who were between the 17th and 34th percentiles. Age or grade range: Students are in fourth grade. Location: Study participants are in 13 schools, presumably in the U.S.
Study sample
Percentages were provided for intervention and control conditions separately. Respectively, intervention and control: 50% and 54% male; 12% and 9% EL; 81% and 83% FRL, 5% each recieved special education; 51% and 54% African American; 26% and 24% White; 19% and 19% Hispanic; 4% and 3% other. (all Hispanic students were White). According to the author, groups were demographically comparable (all ps .05).
Intervention Group
The intervention was small-group tutoring (3 pupils per instructor) on fractions, conducted for 30 minutes at a time, 3 times a week, for 12 weeks. The tutoring was in addition to students' regular math courses and used the fraction program Fraction Challenge. Fraction Challenge emphasizes the conceptualization of fractions on a number line from 0 to 1 over the conceptualization of fractions as a part of a whole (e.g. 3/4 of a pie).
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was regular classroom instruction using Houghton Mifflin Math, which emphasizes the part-whole conceptualization of fractions. Part-whole conceptualization interprets fractions as representing a part of an object. Many of the students also attended a remediation course provided by the schools three times a week.
Support for implementation
Training for tutors consisted of participation in a 2-day workshop. Over the course of the intervention, tutors participated in biweekly, hour-long meetings for ongoing support. The tutors received a script for each lesson but was not expected to memorize or read the script during the tutoring session.
Improving At-Risk Learners' Understanding of Fractions
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2013
- Single Study Review (109 KB) (findings for Fraction Challenge)
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Calculations |
Fraction Challenge vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
At-risk students;
|
17.57 |
7.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comparing Fractions |
Fraction Challenge vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
At-risk students;
|
12.91 |
7.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fraction Number Line |
Fraction Challenge vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
At-risk students;
|
-0.21 |
-0.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Fraction Challenge vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
At-risk students;
|
14.36 |
11.35 |
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.
-
11% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Race Black 53% Other or unknown 3% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 81%
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).