Effects of Fact Retrieval Tutoring on Third-Grade Students with Math Difficulties with and without Reading Difficulties [Fact retrieval practice vs. control]
Powell, Sarah R., Fuchs, Lynn S., Fuchs, Douglas, Cirino, Paul T., Fletcher, Jack M. (2009). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(1), 1–11. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ827128
-
examining66Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Fact retrieval tutoring—Powell et al. (2009))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Automatic Fact Retrieval |
Fact retrieval tutoring—Powell et al. (2009) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Fact practice/retrieval group vs. Comparison group contrast ;
|
0.22 |
-0.33 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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 50% White 27% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 23% Not Hispanic or Latino 77%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in third grade classrooms Nashville, Tennessee and Houston, Texas schools.
Study sample
Students were 9.1 years old on average. Approximately 47 percent were female, 73 percent received subsidized lunch, 23 percent were in special education, and 12 percent were learning English as a second language. The racial and ethnic background of students was 50 percent black, 27 percent white, and 23 percent Hispanic.
Intervention Group
Students assigned to the fact retrieval practice group received tutoring via computer-assisted instruction, math fact flash card practice, and math fact review. The computer-assisted instruction was given using Math Flash, an interactive program that uses number line illustrations to represent addition and subtraction facts. The flash card practice involved flash cards without answers and scripted feedback was provided by the tutor. For the math facts review, students recorded answers to math facts using pencil and paper. The tutoring took place 3 times per week for 15 weeks, and each session lasted between 15 and 18 minutes.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group received no tutoring.
Support for implementation
Across the three tutoring conditions, 22 research assistants or project coordinators served as tutors. The tutors received a two-day training. The research team provided tutors with scripts that covered the key concepts and vocabulary used in each lesson; tutors did not have to follow the scripts word-for-word. Prior to implementation, the tutors reviewed the scripts and practiced tutoring on their own and in groups with other tutors. A project coordinator observed a tutoring session for each tutor, provided feedback, and checked in every 2-3 weeks with each tutor to review any issues or 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).