Remediating Computational Deficits at Third Grade: A Randomized Field Trial [Fact retrieval with procedural computation and computational estimation tutoring vs. irrelevant control (word-identification skill 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
-
examining66Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast;
|
0.08 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Procedural Computation factor score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast;
|
-0.03 |
-0.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Fact Retrieval factor score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast;
|
-0.16 |
-0.21 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Computational Estimation |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast;
|
0.24 |
-0.51 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Story Problems factor score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast;
|
0.03 |
-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: 56%
Male: 44% -
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 58% Other or unknown 25% White 17% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 21% Not Hispanic or Latino 79%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted across 18 schools, with 56 third-grade classrooms in Nashville and 24 third-grade classrooms in Houston.
Study sample
For this contrast, three out of four students (74 percent) were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch, 17 percent were special education, and 12 percent were English learners. Slightly more than half (56 percent) were female.
Intervention Group
For this contrast, the intervention condition was Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring. This condition comprised four activities: computer-assisted instruction using Math Flash (part of the Fact retrieval skill intervention: 7.5 minutes), computer-assisted instruction using Magic Math (part of the Procedural/estimation skill intervention: 5-10 minutes), the flash card practice incorporated in the procedural/estimation skill intervention with corrective feedback (4 minutes), and cumulative review with corrective feedback (4 minutes). The Math Flash portion of the curriculum was exactly the same as the intervention group. The Magic Math computer-assisted instruction comprised three segments: i) addressing conceptual underpinnings using pictorial representations of ones and tens; ii) teaching procedural steps of two-digit addition and subtraction, relying on the same addition or subtraction problems worked in the first segment; and iii) estimation for which the student worked on a double-digit addition problem that differed from the problems used in segments 1 and 2. Flash cards practice in this condition included three types of flash card activities: i) two-digit addition or subtraction problems with or without regrouping to which the student responded by stating whether to add or subtract and then whether to regroup or not regroup; ii) cards showing a two-digit addition problem, with or without regrouping for which the student stated whether the sum of the ones column was closest to 0, 10, or 20; and iii) the same set of cards for which the student had to state the estimated answer to each two-digit addition problem. 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).