The Effect of Tutoring with Nonstandard Equations for Students with Mathematics Difficulty [Standard + non standard equation (combined) tutoring vs. standard equation tutoring]
Powell, Sarah R., Driver, Melissa K., Julian, Tyler E. (2015). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 523–534. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070884
-
examining37Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open Equations (Powell, Driver, et al., 2015) |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Standard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) |
3 Days |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring vs Standard equation tutoring;
|
9.71 |
9.43 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Open Equations- Nonstandard equations (Powell, Driver, et al., 2015) |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Standard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) |
3 Days |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring vs Standard equation tutoring;
|
5.94 |
5.33 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Open Equations: Standard equations (Powell, Driver, et al., 2015) |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Standard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) |
3 Days |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring vs Standard equation tutoring;
|
3.45 |
4.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Equivalence Problems |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Standard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) |
3 Days |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring vs Standard equation tutoring;
|
4.15 |
1.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Equal Sign Tasks |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Standard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) |
3 Days |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring vs Standard equation tutoring;
|
6.96 |
7.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Addition Fluency |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) vs. Standard equation tutoring—Powell et al. (2015) |
3 Days |
Standard and nonstandard equation tutoring vs Standard equation tutoring;
|
6.38 |
8.13 |
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.
-
5% English language learners -
Female: 65%
Male: 35% -
Race Black 43% Other or unknown 14% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 3% Not Hispanic or Latino 97%
Study Details
Setting
The study comprises Grade 2 students at risk for mathematical difficulties from 10 schools in two school districts of the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
Study sample
Within the analytic sample, 35 percent were male, 65 percent were female, 43 percent were African American, 43 percent were White, 14 percent were another race, 3 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were English-language learners, and 16 percent had a school-identified disability.
Intervention Group
For the contrast covered in this review (combined tutoring vs. standard tutoring), combined equation tutoring is considered the intervention condition. Participating students in both tutoring conditions (combined and standard) began tutoring the second week of April. Tutoring, for both groups, lasted for four weeks with sessions conducted three times per week (12 sessions total) by one of six tutors. Sessions lasted 10 to 15 minutes each. Three activities occurred during each combined tutoring session: flash cards, tutor-led lesson, and paper-pencil review. In total, 12 lessons were provided by the tutor across the 12 sessions. Across the 12 lessons, students with mathematics difficult in the combined equation tutoring condition worked on nonstandard and standard equations. In a standard equation, the equal sign is in the standard position: number, operator symbol, number, equal sign, and number (e.g., 2 + 9 = 11; 3 + __ = 7). In a nonstandard equation, the equal sign is in a nonstandard position.
Comparison Group
For the contrast covered in this SRG (combined tutoring vs. standard tutoring), standard equation tutoring is considered the comparison condition. Participating students with mathematics difficulty in both tutoring conditions (combined and standard) began tutoring the second week of April. Tutoring, for both groups, lasted for four weeks with sessions conducted three times per week (12 sessions total) by one of six tutors. Sessions lasted 10 to 15 minutes each. Three activities occurred during each standard tutoring session: flash cards, tutor-led lesson, and paper-pencil review. In total, 12 lessons were provided by the tutor across the 12 sessions. Across the 12 lessons, students with mathematics difficulty in the standard equation tutoring condition only worked on standard equations. In a standard equation, the equal sign is in the standard position: number, operator symbol, number, equal sign, and number (e.g., 2 + 9 = 11; 3 + __ = 7).
Support for implementation
Six tutors participated in the study: five graduate students in education-related fields and one project coordinator with a graduate degree in education. Tutors participated in a two-hour training to become familiar with and practice the tutoring programs of both tutoring conditions. Tutors also met with the project coordinator at the end of the first and third weeks of tutoring for discussion and the resolution of any issues related to student behavior.
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).