The Effects of Strategic Counting Instruction, with and without Deliberate Practice, on Number Combination Skill among Students with Mathematics Difficulties [Word problem instruction with strategic counting practice vs. word problem instruction without strategic counting practice]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Powell, Sarah R.; Seethaler, Pamela M.; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack M.; Fuchs, Douglas; Hamlett, Carol L. (2010). Learning and Individual Differences, v20 n2 p89-100. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ872585
-
examining100Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Find X (Fuchs & Seethaler 2008) dichotomous |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
T1 (WP with strategic counting practice) vs T2 (WP without strategic counting practice);
|
98.62 |
96.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Double-digit Addition & Subtraction (Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
T1 (WP with strategic counting practice) vs T2 (WP without strategic counting practice);
|
0.51 |
0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Four subtests of the Grade 3 Math Battery (Fuchs, Powell, & Hamlett, 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
T1 (WP with strategic counting practice) vs T2 (WP without strategic counting practice);
|
0.32 |
0.07 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vanderbilt Story Problems Grade 2 |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
T1 (WP with strategic counting practice) vs T2 (WP without strategic counting practice);
|
0.58 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
KeyMath-Revised Problem Solving |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
T1 (WP with strategic counting practice) vs T2 (WP without strategic counting practice);
|
0.44 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Vanderbilt Story Problems Grade 3 |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
T1 (WP with strategic counting practice) vs T2 (WP without strategic counting practice);
|
0.42 |
0.28 |
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.
-
17% English language learners -
Female: 41%
Male: 59% -
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
Tennessee, Texas
-
Race Black 61% Other or unknown 28% White 11% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two urban school districts (Houston and Nashville). Students were from 13 schools in Nashville and 18 schools in Houston.
Study sample
The strategic counting with deliberate practice group included 39% female students. 73% of students in this group were receiving subsidized lunches and 43% were receiving special education services. For 18%, English was the student's second language. The racial and ethnic breakdown for this group was as follows: 59% African American, 8% Caucasian, 31% Hispanic, and 2% other. 31% of the students in this group had been retained in grade. The strategic counting without deliberate practice group included 43% female students. 71% of students in this group were receiving subsidized lunches and 45% were receiving special education services. For 16%, English was the student's second language. The racial and ethnic breakdown for this group was as follows: 63% African American, 14% Caucasian, 20% Hispanic, and 2% other. 35% of the students in this group had been retained in grade (p. 22). All students in the study were experiencing math difficulty. This was determined based on the students' scores on two screening measures. All students scored below the 26th percentile on the Arithmetic subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-3 and below the 36th percentile on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation (p. 5, 10). Students were also screened for reading difficulties using the reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Students who scored below the 26th percentile on this assessment were classified as having reading difficulties. In the final analytic sample (including the control group), 27% of students met criteria for math difficulties alone and 73% met criteria for both math and reading difficulties (p. 6, 10)
Intervention Group
The intervention being tested (T1) is strategic counting instruction with deliberate practice. The intervention took place in the context of one-on-one tutoring and was supplemental to the core mathematics. Tutoring lasted 16 weeks and included 48 sessions divided across 4 units. Each session was 20-30 minutes in duration. The tutoring condition looked at embedding strategic number combination instruction within validated word problem intervention. Tutoring sessions were divided up into four units. The first unit focused on foundational skills and included one lesson on strategic counting. During this lesson, they learned about the strategy of “counting up” if they did not instantly know the answer to a problem and learned how to use this strategy for addition and subtraction problems. The remaining three units focused on one of three word problem types (total, difference, and change). During these units, students were taught how to identify different problem types, identify relevant information for solving the problem, and plug the relevant information into appropriate equations for that problem type. During these units, tutors worked to broaden students’ schemas for each problem type by teaching them to identify irrelevant information, solve problems where the missing information is in different locations in the relevant equation for the problem type, work with problems with double-digit numbers, and identify relevant information when it was displayed in pictographs, charts or pictures. Tutoring sessions followed a regular sequence: starting with a flash-card warm up, followed by a word –problem warm-up (starting in session 7), conceptual and strategic instruction, sorting word problems, and a paper-and-pencil review (p. 7-9). The deliberate practice involved several components. First, at the start of each lesson, tutors reviewed the content that was covered in the strategic counting lesson with students. Second, during the flash card warm up, students were presented with problems to solve. If they did not produce the correct answer, the tutor prompted them to count up to the correct answer. Third, when students made errors during the rest of the tutoring session (after the flash card warm up), the tutor prompted the student to count up to arrive at the correct answer. Finally, when the tutor corrected the paper-and-pencil review, for any incorrect answers, he or she demonstrated how to arrive at the correct answers by using the counting up strategy.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition consisted of a schema-based instruction on word problems where students were taught to distinguish between problems types with additive and subtractive structures (combine, compare, change). Strategic counting practice was NOT included; however, students were taught at the start of tutoring on one occasion a strategy for counting up to solve addition and subtraction basic facts. To account for time spent in T1 on flash card practice, T2 also included flash cards to build fluency on number identification 0-9999.
Support for implementation
Tutors were provided with scripted lessons and were instructed to study the lessons ahead of time rather than read straight from them during tutoring.
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).