Remediating Computational Deficits at Third Grade: A Randomized Field Trial [Math Flash with fact retreival tutoring vs. Reading Flash with word-identification tutoring]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Powell, Sarah R.; Hamlett, Carol L.; Fuchs, Douglas; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack M. (2008). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v1 n1 p2-32. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ873872
-
examining67Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Math Flash with fact retrieval tutoring)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math Concepts factor score |
Math Flash with fact retrieval tutoring vs. Reading Flash with word-identification tutoring |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring;
|
-0.08 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fact Retrieval factor score |
Math Flash with fact retrieval tutoring vs. Reading Flash with word-identification tutoring |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring ;
|
0.49 |
-0.21 |
No |
-- | |
|
Procedural Computation factor score |
Math Flash with fact retrieval tutoring vs. Reading Flash with word-identification tutoring |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring;
|
0.16 |
-0.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Computational Estimation |
Math Flash with fact retrieval tutoring vs. Reading Flash with word-identification tutoring |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring;
|
-0.26 |
-0.51 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Story Problems factor score |
Math Flash with fact retrieval tutoring vs. Reading Flash with word-identification tutoring |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring;
|
0.14 |
-0.08 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
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 49% Other or unknown 28% White 22% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 21% Not Hispanic or Latino 79%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted across 18 schools, 56 third-grade classrooms in Nashville and 24 third-grade classrooms in Houston.
Study sample
For this contrast, two-thirds of students (66 percent) were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch, 17 percent were special education, and 12 percent were English learners. About half (52 percent) were female.
Intervention Group
There were four groups in this study; for this contrast, the intervention condition was Fact Retrieval tutoring, which consisted of three activities: computer-assisted instruction (7.5 minutes), flash card practice with corrective feedback (4 minutes), and cumulative review with corrective feedback (4 minutes). The computer-assisted instruction used Math Flash in which addition and subtraction problems with answers were briefly displayed (“flashed”) on the computer screen for 1.3 seconds, after which the student was asked to recollect and type the math fact from memory. Typing in the math fact populated a number line illustrating the math fact at the top of the screen. The student received feedback to indicate whether they completed the task correctly, after which a new problem was displayed. The flash card practice involved two types of activities. First, math facts without answers were shown and students were asked to complete the displayed math problem. After students demonstrated sufficient mastery of these types of exercises, they were shown a second type of flash card, which displayed a number line illustrating a math problem. The students were asked to describe the math fact stated by the number line. Cumulative review was a paper-pencil activity, in which students were asked to complete 15 math problems on paper. The tutors then corrected the math problems aloud while the student observed. As with the other three groups in the study, students received 3 sessions per week for 15 weeks for a total of 45 sessions.
Comparison Group
For this contrast, the comparison condition was word-identification (reading) tutoring, which comprised two activities: computer-assisted instruction (7 minutes), and repeated reading (7 minutes with corrective feedback). The computer-assisted instruction used Reading Flash in which words individually “flashed” on the computer screen for 1.3 seconds, after which the student was tasked to type in the word correctly spelled. Repeated reading involved students reading a short story aloud for two minutes while tutors counted the number of words read aloud correctly. Students repeated the task two more times in an attempt to improve the number of words read aloud correctly within the time allotted. As with the other three groups in the study, students received 3 sessions per week for 15 weeks for a total of 45 sessions.
Support for implementation
Tutors were trained over two full days. During the weeks following training, tutors studied the tutoring scripts and practiced implementing the procedures alone and with each other. Tutors then each conducted a session in each study condition with a project coordinator who provided corrective feedback. Research assistants met with project coordinators every two to three weeks to address problems and questions.
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).