Remediating Number Combination and Word Problem Deficits among Students with Mathematics Difficulties: A Randomized Control Trial [Tutoring in solving word problems vs. control]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Powell, Sarah R.; Seethaler, Pamela M.; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack M.; Fuchs, Douglas; Hamlett, Carol L.; Zumeta, Rebecca O. (2009). Journal of Educational Psychology, v101 n3 p561-576. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ861181
-
examining89Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 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 |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pirate Math versus Control;
|
0.39 |
-0.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pirate Math versus Control;
|
0.25 |
-0.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Procedural Calculations Factor Score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pirate Math versus Control;
|
0.48 |
-0.26 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number Combinations Factor Score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pirate Math versus Control;
|
0.12 |
-0.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vanderbilt Story Problems |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pirate Math versus Control;
|
0.52 |
-0.25 |
Yes |
|
|
|
KeyMath-Revised Problem Solving |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pirate Math versus Control;
|
0.26 |
-0.14 |
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: 39%
Male: 61% -
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 64% Other or unknown 28% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 22% Not Hispanic or Latino 78%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two, large, urban school districts, one in Houston, Texas and the other in Nashville, Tennessee. Participants were drawn from 63 classrooms across 18 schools: 7 schools and 23 classrooms in Houston and 11 schools and 40 classrooms in Nashville.
Study sample
Students in the Pirate Math intervention condition had the following characteristics: mean age of 8.98 years, 45% female, 762% eligible for subsidized lunch, 17% classified as special education, 29% had been retained a grade, 19% classified as English learners, 57% African American, 7% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, and 10% other. Students in the control condition had the following characteristics: mean age of 8.86 years, 34% female, 77% eligible for subsidized lunch, 17% classified as special education, 23% had been retained a grade, 15% classified as English learners, 70% African American, 9% Caucasian, 19% Hispanic, and 2% other.
Intervention Group
The word problem solving program, Pirate Math, was the intervention. It was provided for 16 weeks, 3 sessions per week and included 48 lessons. Each session lasted 20 to 30 minutes. The 48 lessons are divided into 4 units. Trained tutors pulled students from the classroom at times other than reading or math instruction and delivered scripted lessons. Tutoring targeted solving total, difference, and change word problems. The introductory unit addresses foundational word problem skills, a counting up strategy for solving addition and subtraction basic facts, double-digit addition and subtraction, and how to find x when the unknown varies its position in simple addition and subtraction equations (a + b = c; e - f = g). The remaining 3 units utilize schema based instruction to teach 3 problem types; one per unit. Students learn total/combine, difference/compare, and change problems. Students are taught to recognize the structure of each problem, identify the unknown, and generate an equation that matches the structure of the problem type. Students were taught explicitly to recognize salient features of problem types and to identify transfer features that make identifying the problem type difficult. Activities included flash cards on basic facts, conceptual and strategic instruction, fluency practice on identifying problem types, and independent practice with paper/pencil review where number combinations, procedural calculations, and solving a word problem are included. Students solve the calculations for 2 min and the word problem for 2 min. Answers are reviewed.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in business-as-usual math instruction. In Nashville, teachers followed the Houghton Mifflin Math curriculum (Greenes et al., 2005). In Houston, teacher selected their own math curriculum but were guided by Houston's Horizontal Alignment Planning Guide.
Support for implementation
Tutors are provided scripts to be studied before tutoring, not read aloud to students during tutoring. Tutors were trained in a one-day session of instruction which included practicing implementation. Tutors then practiced alone, with a partner, and then provided tutoring to their supervisor before implementation. Ongoing meetings occurred every 2-3 weeks throughout the intervention period to address problems as they arise and to update any tutoring procedures.
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).