Effects of a Multitier Support System on Calculation, Word Problem, and Prealgebraic Performance among At-Risk Learners [Word problem instruction vs. control]
Powell, Sarah R.; Fuchs, Lynn S.; Cirino, Paul T.; Fuchs, Douglas; Compton, Donald L.; Changas, Paul C. (2015). Exceptional Children, v81 n4 p443-470 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1065063
-
examining169Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Word problem instruction—Powell et al. (2015))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Assessment of Algebraic Knowledge (Fuchs et al., 2008) |
Word problem instruction—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Word Problem Response to Intervention vs. Business as usual comparison;
|
5.80 |
4.44 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second-Grade Calculations Battery (SGCB; Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell, 2003): Single-digit |
Word problem instruction—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Word Problem Response to Intervention vs. Business as usual comparison;
|
6.69 |
4.83 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Second-Grade Calculations Battery (SGCB; Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell, 2003): Double-digit |
Word problem instruction—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Word Problem Response to Intervention vs. Business as usual comparison;
|
6.55 |
5.31 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Calculations - Distal Outcome (composite) [Powell et al. 2015] |
Word problem instruction—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Word Problem Response to Intervention vs. Business as usual comparison;
|
-0.19 |
-0.45 |
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.
-
17% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
-
Race Black 54% Other or unknown 8% White 18% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 25 schools in a metropolitan school district across four cohorts (one per year for 4 years). Whole-class instruction was delivered November to March and tutoring was delivered December to March during the school year.
Study sample
Demographic characteristics of the students in the Word Problem RtI condition are as follows: 54% male; 56% African American, 15.4% White, 6.6% other, and 22% Hispanic; 86.6% qualified for free or reduced priced lunch; 8.8% were identified as having a disability; 16.5% were English Language Learners; and 4.4% had been retained. Demographic characteristics of the students in the business-as-usual comparison condition are as follows: 39.7% male; 52.6% African American, 20.5% White, 9% other, and 17.9% Hispanic; 88.5% qualified for free or reduced priced lunch; 14.1% were identified as having a disability; 17.9% were English Language Learners; and 11.5% had been retained.
Intervention Group
The two-tiered Word Problem intervention is a combination of Tier 1 whole-class lessons and Tier 2 small-group tutoring lessons. Tier 1 consisted of 34 whole-class lessons with two lessons per week over a 17-week period. Each lesson lasted approximately 40 to 45 minutes and was delivered by research assistants in the students’ classrooms. Tier 2 consisted of 39 small-group tutoring lessons delivered by research assistants to groups of 2 to 3 students. Tutoring started at the beginning of weeks 4 or 5 of the Tier 1 intervention and lasted for 13 weeks with 3 lessons a week. Each lesson lasted 25 to 30 minutes and took place outside of the student’s classroom (i.e., library, conference room, hallway). The Word Problem whole-class intervention and small-group tutoring used Kintsch and colleagues’ framework in which word problemsolving is thought to be an interaction between problem solving and language comprehension. Students learned to apply a problem-type schema (in second grade the three additive schemas were combine, compare, and change) to help with solving word problems.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison classrooms received their math instruction from the district curriculum, Houghton Mifflin Math.
Support for implementation
Research assistants participated in two 6-hour training sessions where they learned to implement the Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions. Before entering schools, research assistants had to demonstrate proficiency on a practice lesson (95% fidelity against the lesson’s fidelity checklist). Weekly meetings were held with the first author, project coordinators, and research assistants to discuss upcoming lessons and problems encountered.
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).