Evaluating Math Recovery: Assessing the Causal Impact of a Diagnostic Tutoring Program on Student Achievement [Intensive one-to-one tutoring in arithmetical knowledge vs. control]
Smith, Thomas M.; Cobb, Paul; Farran, Dale C.; Cordray, David S.; Munter, Charles (2013). American Educational Research Journal, v50 n2 p397-428. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1005742
-
examining775Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math Recovery proximal assessment (MRp) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Math Recovery Initial Assessment (MR1.1) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Math Reasoning Test |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Quantitative Concepts |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson Math - Math Fluency Subset |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
15% English language learners -
Female: 55%
Male: 45% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
Race Other or unknown 48% White 52%
Study Details
Setting
The two-year study took place in 20 elementary schools (5 urban, 10 suburban, and 5 rural) across five districts in two states. The tutoring intervention was delivered one-on-one in addition to normal class instruction.
Study sample
All students in the study were struggling in mathematics. Referring to the 1,027 students participating in the study at the time of randomization, 55 percent were female, 45 percent were male, 48 percent were a non-white minority, 15 percent had limited English proficiency, and 65 percent received free or reduce priced lunch.
Intervention Group
Students assigned to the intervention condition received Math Recovery which involved one-on-one tutoring from a certified teacher who worked with the student to improve their knowledge of arithmetic. Math Recovery is a diagnostic tutoring approach in which the tutors continuously assess the student’s progress using the Learning and Instructional Frameworks and engages them in tasks appropriate for their current knowledge and understanding--the tutors used the students pretest and other assessments over the course of the intervention period to determine the areas students most needed help with during tutoring. The six aspects of early number knowledge used in the Math Recovery Framework are: (1) stage of early arithmetical learning, (2) forward number word sequence, (3) backward number word sequence, (4) numeral identification, (5) base ten arithmetical strategies, and (6) structuring number. Tutoring session were 30-minutes in length, occurring 4-5 times a week for 12 weeks.
Comparison Group
The students who remained on the waitlist formed the comparison group; they received their normal classroom mathematics instruction with no supplemental Math Recovery tutoring.
Support for implementation
The training of the MR tutors involved 60 hours of professional development provided by an MR leader, which typically included an initial 5-day workshop during the summer followed by a three-day workshop conducted approximately three weeks into the school year after trainees had completed the assessment interviews with the students selected to participate in the program. The tutors of each district were also expected to meet as a cohort for two hours each month. The main goal of the training was to teach tutors to use the MR Learning and Instructional Frameworks to assess students’ arithmetical knowledge and to adjust instruction based on these evaluations by selecting tasks that are tailored to their current levels of arithmetical reasoning.
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).