Remediating Number Combination and Word Problem Deficits among Students with Mathematics Difficulties: A Randomized Control Trial [Tutoring in automatic retrieval 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
-
examining91Students, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number Sentences |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Math Flash versus Control;
|
-0.05 |
-0.24 |
No |
-- | |
|
Find X |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Math Flash versus Control;
|
0.10 |
-0.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number Combinations Factor Score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Math Flash versus Control;
|
0.32 |
-0.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Procedural Calculations Factor Score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Math Flash versus Control;
|
0.18 |
-0.26 |
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 |
MathFlash versus Control;
|
-0.06 |
-0.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
KeyMath-Revised Problem Solving |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Math Flash versus Control;
|
0.07 |
-0.14 |
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: 43%
Male: 57% -
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 66% Other or unknown 24% White 10% -
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 Math Flash intervention condition had the following characteristics: mean age of 9.0 years, 52% female, 82% eligible for subsidized lunch, 18% classified as special education, 30% had been retained a grade, 14% classified as English learners, 61% African American, 11% Caucasian, 25% Hispanic, and 3% 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 Number Combination tutoring, Math Flash, was the intervention. It was provided for 16 weeks, 3 sessions per week and included 48 lessons. Each lesson lasts for 20-30 minutes. Math Flash addresses the 200 number combinations with addends and subtrahends from 0-9. Number combinations are introduced in a deliberate order and continued distributed and cumulative review occurs of number combinations already addressed. Manipulatives and the number line are used. Students are taught strategies for solving number combinations. They can either know it, or use a counting up strategy. Five activities are included in the lesson: flash card warm up, conceptual and strategic instruction, lesson-specific flash card practice, computerized practice, and paper-pencil cumulative review. A motivation component is included.
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).