Testing the Efficacy of a Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention by Small Group Size [Whole number understanding intervention vs. control]
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Kosty, Derek; Kurtz Nelson, Evangeline; Smolkowski, Keith; Fien, Hank; Turtura, Jessica (2017). AERA Open, v3 n2. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1194151
-
examining592Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ROOTS Assessment of Early Numeracy Skills (RAENS) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Early Numeracy Curriculum-Based Measures (EN-CBM): Oral Counting (OC) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Number Sense Brief (NSB) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test- Tenth Edition (SAT-10): Math |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
10 Months |
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
25% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Oregon
-
Race Asian 3% Black 4% Native American 3% Other or unknown 35% Pacific Islander 1% White 54% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74%
Study Details
Setting
The study comprises kindergarten students at risk for mathematical difficulties (MD) from 69 classrooms of 14 elementary schools in four Oregon school districts, located in rural and suburban western Oregon as well as the Portland metropolitan area. Participating students screened and identified as eligible for the ROOTS intervention (and thus at risk for mathematics difficulties) were randomly assigned to three groups: (i) a two-student ROOTS intervention group (2:1); (ii) a five-student ROOTS intervention group (5:1); or (iii) a no-treatment comparison condition. Students assigned to the ROOTS groups received the ROOTS curriculum instruction in small groups outside of their core whole-class mathematics instruction. The study occurred over two academic years. Though each year represented a separate sample, in the study the samples from each year were combined. (pp. 1, 4, 5)
Study sample
The average age in the sample 5.2 years. Approximately 51 percent were male, 10 percent were eligible for special education, and 25 percent were limited English proficient. The racial and ethnic background of students was 54 percent white, 26 percent Hispanic, and roughly evenly split amongst American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and students with multiple races.
Intervention Group
For the contrast covered in this SRG (Contrast 2: ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison, review ID 1904996), the two small-group ROOTS intervention groups are collectively considered the intervention condition and the no-treatment comparison group is the comparison condition. The ROOTS curriculum is a Tier 2 kindergarten program consisting of 50 lessons designed to build students’ whole number proficiency. ROOTS instruction emphasizes concepts from the Counting & Cardinality and Operations & Algebraic Thinking domains of the CCSS for mathematics (CCSS Initiative, 2010) to promote robust whole number sense for students struggling in math. In the study, ROOTS instruction began in late fall and ended in the spring of each study year. The ROOTS program instruction occurred at times outside core whole-class instruction. Participating students in both ROOTS conditions received the ROOTS curriculum in 20-minutes small group sessions five days per week for approximately 10 weeks. Two and five students comprised each small group in the ROOTS two-student group condition and ROOTS five-student group condition, respectively. (pp. 4, 5)
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group received no intervention. They received core mathematics instruction from their kindergarten classroom teacher which included a variety of programs such as Everyday Math.
Support for implementation
Interventionists participated in two five-hour professional development workshops conducted by project staff. The first workshop covered ROOTS lessons 1-15, and the second workshop covered lessons 26-50. Interventionists also received between two and four coaching visits from ROOTS coaches during intervention implementation. The coaching visits consisted of direct observations of lesson delivery, and feedback on instructional quality and fidelity of intervention implementation. (p. 5)
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Shanley, Lina; Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Kurtz-Nelson, Evangeline; Fien, Hank. (2017). Early Number Skills Gains and Mathematics Achievement: Intervening to Establish Successful Early Mathematics Trajectories. Journal of Special Education v51 n3 p177-188.
-
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Smolkowski, Keith; Kurtz-Nelson, Evangeline; Fien, Hank; Baker, Scott K.; Kosty, Derek. (2016). Testing the Immediate and Long-Term Efficacy of a Tier 2 Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention.
-
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Smolkowski, Keith; Turtura, Jessica; Kosty, Derek; Kurtz-Nelson, Evangeline; Fien, Hank; Baker, Scott K. (2019). Exploring the Relationship between Initial Mathematics Skill and a Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention. Exceptional Children, v85 n2 p129-146.
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).