Does Working Memory Moderate the Effects of Fraction Intervention? An Aptitude-Treatment Interaction [Fractions knowledge intervention with fluency building activities vs. fraction knowledge intervention with conceptual activities]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Schumacher, Robin F.; Sterba, Sonya K.; Long, Jessica; Namkung, Jessica; Malone, Amelia; Hamlett, Carol L.; Jordan, Nancy C.; Gersten, Russell; Siegler, Robert S.; Changas, Paul (2014). Journal of Educational Psychology, v106 n2 p499-514. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054465
-
examining163Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Calculations |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fluency intervention group vs. conceptual intervention group contrast;
|
18.51 |
17.84 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fluency intervention group vs. conceptual intervention group contrast;
|
14.78 |
14.64 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Number Line |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Week |
Fluency intervention group vs. conceptual intervention group contrast;
|
0.21 |
0.20 |
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: 63%
Male: 38% -
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
-
Race Black 60% Other or unknown 2% White 39% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 23% Not Hispanic or Latino 77%
Study Details
Setting
The study included 49 classrooms and 14 schools (in one urban school district, although the exact location is not specified).
Study sample
For this contrast, the fluency condition sample demographics were: 58% African American, 17% White, 24% Hispanic, 1% Other, 63% Female, 14% English learners, 93% receiving subsidized lunch, 8% receiving special education. The conceptual condition sample demographics were: 61% African American, 14% White, 22% Hispanic, 3% Other, 62% Female, 14% English learners, 95% receiving subsidized lunch, 10% receiving special education.
Intervention Group
For this contrast, the intervention condition was the fluency intervention group. The intervention occurred 3 times per week for 12 weeks. The sessions were 30 minutes long. Trained tutors delivered the interventions in small groups of students during either math time or the school's intervention time depending on the teacher preferences. Tutors used the Fraction Face-Off! program. Sessions focused on interpreting fractions, particularly comparing fraction magnitude and ordering and placing fractions on number lines. In the first two weeks, tutors introduced key vocabulary related to fractions (numerator, denominator, unit, equivalent, etc.) and had students practice reading and naming fractions, and comparing fractions with the same denominator or the same numerator. In weeks 3-5, tutors focused on fractions equivalent to 1/2 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, 5/10, and 6/12, and on using 1/2 has a benchmark when comparing fractions. Weeks 6-8 focused on improper fractions and mixed numbers, while week 9 focused on subtracting and adding fractions with like and unlike denominators, as well as mixed numbers. In week 10, tutors removed 1/2 from the number line so students did not have that benchmark when ordering fractions. Finally, weeks 11 and 12 were cumulative review. Each session had four components: training (8-12 minutes), group work (8-12 minutes), activity (5 minutes), and individual practice (5 minutes). In the fluency condition, the activity component focused on students performing strategic speed activities used flashcards. Students worked together to answer as many flashcards correctly each session, with tutors setting the goal of beating the previous session's score. When students made errors, they had to give the correct answer before they could proceed to the next flash card.
Comparison Group
For this contrast, the comparison condition is the conceptual intervention group. The conceptual intervention was identical to the fluency intervention except during the activity (5 minutes) component of each session. In the conceptual intervention this time involved students using manipulatives to represent different fractions and explained their reasoning to the group; students earned points for each correct representation and explanation (in comparison, the fluency condition had speeded flashcard practice during this time).
Support for implementation
The intervention was delivered by tutors who were full- or part-time graduate students and attended a week-long training and biweekly 1 hour follow-up trainings. Each was responsible for 1 to 2 groups in each condition.
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).