A Fraction Sense Intervention for Sixth Graders with or at Risk for Mathematics Difficulties [Fraction sense intervention vs. control]
Dyson, Nancy I.; Jordan, Nancy C.; Barbieri, Christina A.; Rodrigues, Jessica; Rinne, Luke (2018). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603994
-
examining52Students, grade6
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Arithmetic |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
6.99 |
5.23 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fraction Arithmetic |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
5.70 |
5.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Concepts |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
17.39 |
13.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fraction Concepts |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
17.91 |
15.71 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Number Line Estimation (FNLE) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
14.31 |
21.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fraction Number Line Estimation (FNLE) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
13.53 |
21.74 |
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Female: 56%
Male: 44% -
- 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
-
Race Black 23% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 40% Not Hispanic or Latino 60%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in two Northeastern schools.
Study sample
Student level characteristics were only provided for the two schools as a whole, not for the analytic sample in the study. On average, roughly 32 percent were white, 23 percent were black, and 40 percent were Hispanic. About 18 percent were English Learners, 30 percent were from families of low socioeconomic status, and 11 percent were identified as needing special education services.
Intervention Group
The intervention was a supplemental research-based fraction sense intervention for sixth graders with or at risk for mathematics difficulties. The goal of the intervention was to build understanding of fraction magnitudes on the number line. Researchers delivered the intervention in small groups of 4 students in 21 sessions over a 6-week period, approximately 5 days a week. Each session lasted 45 minutes during a period of time when each school delivered supplemental mathematics instruction. The sessions aimed to improve the understanding of fractions, relations between fractions, and fraction operations. Lesson goals mirrored Common Core State Standards in Mathematics for fraction instruction for grades 3 to 6. Each session consisted of a warm-up, oral counting of fractions exercise, explicit instruction activities, practice activities, multiplication fluency games, and formative assessment.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual control group in which students received varying supplemental instruction by their school during the allotted intervention period. Students in the comparison condition received small group instruction (School A) or individual instruction using the Think Through Math software (School B).
Support for implementation
Prior to the start of the intervention, instructors received a total of 8 hours of training that included practice in use of gestures, error correction procedures, and instructor/student dialogue. Additionally, weekly 1 hour meetings were held throughout the intervention period to give instructors opportunities for debriefing on lessons already taught and training on upcoming lessons. Lessons were scripted and audio was recorded to ensure fidelity of implementation.
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).