Fostering At-Risk Kindergarten Children's Number Sense [Add 0/1 treatment vs. doubles strategy (control)]
Baroody, Arthur J.; Eiland, Michael D.; Purpura, David J.; Reid, Erin E. (2012). Cognition and Instruction, v30 n4 p435-470. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ982662
-
examining28Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Discovery learning using add-0/1–Baroody et al. (2012))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mental-Addition Test: n + 1 contrast transfer |
Discovery learning using add-0/1–Baroody et al. (2012) vs. (Not applicable) |
2 Weeks |
Full sample: Add 0/1 versus Doubles;
|
0.24 |
0.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mental-Addition Test: small double transfer |
Discovery learning using add-0/1–Baroody et al. (2012) vs. (Not applicable) |
2 Weeks |
Full sample: Add 0/1 versus Doubles;
|
0.14 |
0.30 |
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.
-
14% English language learners -
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
- 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
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
The analytic sample was comprised of 28 kindergartners from 6 classes in 2 schools across 2 districts in a mid-sized midwestern community. All students were at or below the 25th percentile on the TEMA-3 or were considered at academic risk, defined by having one or more of the following risk factors: free/reduced lunch, minority status, English language learner, low birth weight, fetal alcohol/drug syndrome, speech services, ADHD.
Study sample
The students in the study ranged from 5.1 to 6 years of age. In the analytic sample, 43 percent were male and 57 percent were female. Sixty-one percent (17 students) were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 75 percent (21 students) were minority, and 14 percent (4 students) were English language learners.
Intervention Group
Both conditions began with sessions focused on mental addition prerequisites. These sessions were 30 minutes each, twice a week for 10 weeks. Subsequently, the Add 0/1 condition consisted of 20 30-minute sessions, delivered individually to students roughly 2 times per week for 9 weeks. In each session, the student completed a subset of 10 items from the following: after 3, 3 + 1, 1 + 3, 3 + 0, 2 + 4; after 4, 4 + 1, 1 + 4, 0 + 4; after 6. Then, students took a break in the form of a brief manual game. Then, students completed another subset of 10 items from the following: after 7, 7 + 1, 1 + 7, 0 + 7, 5 + 3; after 8, 8 + 1, 1 + 8, 8 + 0; after 9. 2 + 4 and 5 + 3 served as non-examples of the add-1 rule. A computer reward game was played at the end of each session.
Comparison Group
Both conditions began with sessions focused on mental addition prerequisites. These sessions were 30 minutes each, twice a week for 10 weeks. Subsequently, the Doubles condition consisted of 20 30-minute sessions, delivered individually to students roughly 2 times per week for 9 weeks. For the first 10 sessions, the intervention began with the student skip counting by 2 to 20, highlighting the even numbers from 1 to 20 on a counting list. Then the student solved addition problems on the counting list, with the goal of highlighting that the sums of all doubles, but not near doubles, are even. Sessions 11 to 20 involved skip counting by n, a related double, and near double, with the goal of showing that an n + n item, but not near doubles, could be determined by skip counting by n twice (except for 1 + 1). Alternatively, students practiced meaningful analogies for a double, the doubles, and a non-example (near double).
Support for implementation
The 4 interventionists participated in 6 3-hour training sessions on testing and training procedures before the study began.
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).