The Effect of Tutoring with Nonstandard Equations for Students with Mathematics Difficulty [Standard equations tutoring or combined (standard and nonstandard) equations tutoring vs. control]
Powell, Sarah R.; Driver, Melissa K.; Julian, Tyler E. (2015). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v48 n5 p523-534. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070884
-
examining51Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open Equations (Powell, Driver, et al., 2015) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated Sample: Standard Equation Tutoring + Nonstandard Equation Tutoring vs. No-tutoring Comparison;
|
10.81 |
6.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Open Equations- Nonstandard equations (Powell, Driver, et al., 2015) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated Sample: Standard Equation Tutoring + Nonstandard Equation Tutoring vs. No-tutoring Comparison;
|
6.39 |
3.28 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Open Equations: Standard equations (Powell, Driver, et al., 2015) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated Sample: Standard Equation Tutoring + Nonstandard Equation Tutoring vs. No-tutoring Comparison;
|
4.36 |
3.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Equivalence Problems |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated Sample: Standard Equation Tutoring + Nonstandard Equation Tutoring vs. No-tutoring Comparison;
|
3.93 |
1.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
Addition Fluency |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated Sample: Standard Equation Tutoring + Nonstandard Equation Tutoring vs. No-tutoring Comparison;
|
8.47 |
7.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Equal Sign Tasks |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated Sample: Standard Equation Tutoring + Nonstandard Equation Tutoring vs. No-tutoring Comparison;
|
8.24 |
8.11 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 61%
Male: 39% -
Race Black 45% Other or unknown 12% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96%
Study Details
Setting
The study comprises Grade 2 students at risk for mathematical difficulties (MD) from 10 schools in two school districts of the US mid-Atlantic region. Of the 56 students identified as MD in the participating schools, 54 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: nonstandard and standard equation tutoring (“combined” tutoring), standard equation tutoring, or no-tutoring comparison. Tutoring for the combined and standard tutoring conditions was administered by one of six tutors. Tutoring group sizes are presumed to have been small given that the overall sample size is small and randomization was blocked by classroom (the number of tutoring groups and the number per group are not provided). The tutoring session began during the second week of April and lasted four weeks.
Study sample
Within the analytic sample of this contrast, 39 percent were male, 61 percent were female, 45 percent were African American, 43 percent were White, 12 percent were another race, 4 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were English-language learners, and 18 percent had a school-identified disability.
Intervention Group
For the contrast covered in this SRG (combined + standard equation tutoring vs. no-tutoring comparison), the two tutoring conditions are collectively considered to be the intervention condition and no tutoring to be the comparison condition. Participating MD 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, MD students in the combined equation tutoring group worked on nonstandard and standard equations. MD students in the standard equation tutoring group 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). In a nonstandard equation, the equal sign is in a nonstandard position.
Comparison Group
The MD students randomly assigned to the no-tutoring group, the comparison condition for the contrast covered in this SRG, received no tutoring (i.e. “business as usual”).
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).