Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments.
Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Grant, T. S., Stephens, A. C., & Laroque, P. T. (2010). Exceptional Children, 76(4), 417-437.
-
examining54Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Formal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Computation |
Formal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
194.68 |
189.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation |
Formal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
195.57 |
190.56 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fractions Computation Test |
Formal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.24 |
17.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Problem Solving Test–Revised |
Formal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.53 |
15.88 |
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.
-
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
Washington
-
Race Asian 4% Black 22% Native American 9% Other or unknown 17% White 48% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85%
Study Details
Setting
The study includes 54 students in Grades 6, 7, and 8 from 8 classrooms in 3 middle schools in an urban part of Washington. All student participants received math instruction in self-contained special education classrooms.
Study sample
Race: Of the 54 students in the study, 26 students were European American, 12 were African American, 8 were Hispanic, 5 were Native American, 2 were Asian American, and 1 was Unspecified. Disability/service area: Of the 54 students, 46 had a Learning disability, 6 had ADHD, 1 had an Emotional/behavioral disability, and 1 had a Speech/language service. Subsidized lunch: Of the 54 students, 41 had subsidized lunch.
Intervention Group
Formal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction (Formal + EAI) was the intervention. The intervention condition spanned 24 days at each school (50-55 minute class periods per day). The instruction consisted of 24 lessons across 3 units. The first unit was explicit instruction on key fractions concepts via a computer-based program called Fractions at Work. This unit took 8 days of instruction. The other 2 units consisted of 2 EAI activities. The first activity took 6 days. The 2nd activity took 10 days. Students also used concrete manipulatives.
Comparison Group
Informal + Enhanced Anchored Instruction (Informal + EAI) was the comparison. The comparison condition spanned 24 days at each school (50-55 minute class periods per day). The instruction had 3 units, consisting of 3 EAI activities. The first activity took 8 days of instruction (the same amount of days as the 1st unit of the intervention condition). The 2nd and 3rd EAI activities were the same 2 activities done in the intervention condition.
Support for implementation
The 3 teachers participated in a 2-day workshop during the summer before the start of the school year. The workshop was led by a middle school math teacher who taught with EAI for 4 years. The teachers had already been using the informal EAI curriculum for at least 1 year.
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).