Intervention for First Graders with Limited Number Knowledge: Large-Scale Replication of a Randomized Controlled Trial [Number operations intervention vs. control]
Gersten, Russell; Rolfhus, Eric; Clarke, Ben; Decker, Lauren E.; Wilkins, Chuck; Dimino, Joseph (2015). American Educational Research Journal, v52 n3 p516-546. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063565
-
examining994Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high individual-level non-response, but provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.32 |
84.04 |
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
Urban
-
- 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
South, West
-
Race Black 44% Other or unknown 1% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 54%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four urban school districts in the south central and southwestern United States. The districts all had at least 14 elementary schools in which there were at least three first-grade classrooms. The districts also used a district-wide mathematics curriculum and did not use any small group mathematics interventions.
Study sample
The study used a cluster-level randomized controlled trial (RCT) design in which students were randomized to condition by schools in matched pairs (i.e. one school within each pair was randomly assigned to the intervention and the other to the comparison group). After random assignment of schools, one comparison school dropped out of the study leading the authors to also drop its matched pair in the intervention group. As such, the final cluster-level analytic sample consisted of 76 schools (38 in each group assignment). After randomization, these schools distributed consent forms to eligible students: 2,526 intervention and 2,318 comparison students. In total, 1,643 intervention and 1,076 comparison students consented to participate in the study. The consenting students were then administered a screening battery (six short math tests) to identify students at-risk (AR) for difficulties in mathematics. Students scoring below the 35th percentile of the composite screening score were identified as at-risk: 615 intervention students and 379 comparison students. Missing posttest scores were imputed using multivariate stochastic sequential regression-based multiple imputation for 60 intervention and 53 comparison students. The study recruited 78 schools in 4 urban school districts in 4 states of the United States. Only 76 schools were included in the analytic sample: 38 in the intervention group and 38 in the control group. Within the 38 intervention schools, 615 students identified as at-risk math consented to participate. Within the 38 comparison schools, 379 students identified as AR math consented to participate. Posttest data were collected from 555 intervention and 326 comparison students. Missing posttest scores were imputed using multivariate stochastic sequential regression-based multiple imputation. In the intervention group, 47 percent of students were female, 1 percent were American Indian/Asian/other, 44 percent were black, 8 percent were white, 47 percent were Hispanic, 36 percent qualified for free or reduced price lunch, and 8 percent were on an Individualized Education Programs (IEP). In the comparison group, 51 percent of students were female, 1 percent were American Indian/Asian/other, 44 percent were black, 11 percent were white, 44 percent were Hispanic, 32 percent qualified for free or reduced price lunch, and 8 percent were on an Individualized Education Programs (IEP).
Intervention Group
The intervention, Number Rockets, was administered to students as a supplement to regular classroom math instruction. Number Rockets is a scripted mathematics program that focuses on the number line, addition and subtraction problems, magnitude comparison, and basic arithmetic using whole numbers. The instruction is teacher-led and given in small groups of two to three. Students are given opportunities to practice new concepts or strategies modeled by their teachers and receive immediate feedback. Each lesson lasted 40 minutes which included 30 minutes of instructional time and 10 minutes of fact practice. The intervention lasted about 17 weeks, with the aim of completing 45 lessons; 86 tutors delivered the intervention in the small groups.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. Students received regular core instruction and any additional support the teacher might typically give. Most comparison schools provided interventions for students struggling in reading, but they were not eligible for the study if they provided supplemental mathematics interventions.
Support for implementation
The 86 tutors were recruited from local pools of retired and substitute teachers. Tutors received a one-day training prior to implementation and two two-hour follow-up trainings.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Rolfhus, Eric; Gersten, Russell; Clarke, Ben; Decker, Lauren E.; Wilkins, Chuck; Dimino, Joseph. (2012). An Evaluation of "Number Rockets": A Tier-2 Intervention for Grade 1 Students at Risk for Difficulties in Mathematics. Final Report. NCEE 2012-4007. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
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).