Comparison of the Effects of Computer-Based Practice and Conceptual Understanding Interventions on Mathematics Fact Retention and Generalization [Conceptual understanding intervention vs. control]
Kanive, Rebecca; Nelson, Peter M.; Burns, Matthew K.; Ysseldyke, James (2014). Journal of Educational Research, v107 n2 p83-89. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1028446
-
examining57Students, grades4-5
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Single-skill Curriculum-Based Measures of Mathematics (CBM-M): Multiplication fact fluency |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Conceptual intervention vs. control group contrast;
|
15.89 |
12.71 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Single-digit multiplication word problem test: Multiplication fact generalization (Kanive, Nelson, Burns, and Ysseldyke 2014) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Conceptual intervention vs. control group contrast;
|
8.87 |
7.76 |
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 53%
Male: 47% -
- 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
Minnesota
-
Race Asian 4% Black 28% Native American 2% White 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted on students with mathematics difficulties in grade four through five from one school in Minnesota. The school’s total enrollment in grades kindergarten through five was 762 students, of which 69 percent were white and 34 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (p. 84).
Study sample
The study sample included students in grades four through five with mathematics difficulties from one elementary school (grades kindergarten through five). The study sample was 45.6 percent white (41 students), 27.8 percent Black (25 students), 4.4 percent Asian (4 students), 2.2 percent Native American (2 students), and 20 percent Hispanic (18 students). About half of the study sample was female (53.3 percent, 48 students), and one third were English learners (33.3 percent, 30 students). More than a quarter of the study sample were students with an individualized education plan (IEP; 26.7 percent, 24 students) (p. 84).
Intervention Group
The intervention was a supplemental model-led test explicit instruction approach using manipulative items in activities developed by Van de Walle and Loving (2006) outside of regular mathematics instruction time (pp. 85-86). Intervention group students were randomly assigned to work on 6s and 7s multiplication facts or 8s and 9s multiplication facts in the intervention (p. 85). The intervention consisted of two 15-minute sessions (30 minutes total) of supplemental mathematics instruction covering four activities: (1) Base-10 manipulative blocks, (2) Fill the Chutes, (3) Build It In Parts, and (4) Broken Calculator (p. 85). During each activity, interventionists first presented and modeled each activity, then students attempted to complete a problem with assistance, and finally students independently completed a problem (p. 85). In the Base-10 manipulative blocks activity, students use blocks to solve multiplication problems. They are presented with a problem (for example, 6 x 6 = ?) and instructed to solve using blocks (for example, using six squares with six blocks in each square). Students are encouraged to talk aloud as they complete each problem (p. 85). In the Fill the Chutes activity, students use chutes (columns) and game pieces (such as Milton Bradley’s Connect Four game) to solve multiplication problems. They are presented with a multiplication problem (for example, 6 x 9 = ?) and instructed to solve by filling chutes with the game pieces (for example, by filling six chutes with nine game pieces per chute) (p. 85). In the Build It In Parts activity, students use colored counters to explore multiplication facts. They are instructed use the counters to form groups and create as many different combinations as possible (p. 85) to get to a given total number (for example, for the total number of 12, they might use 6 green and 6 blue counters to represent 6 x 2 = 12 or 4 green and 4 blue and 4 yellow counters to represent 4 x 3 = 12). In the Broken Calculator activity, students use calculators to explore multiplication facts. They are presented with a multiplication problem (for example, 7 x 8 = ?) and instructed to use a calculator to find the product without the use of the multiply key (for example, by pressing the addition key seven times and then the equal sign eight times) (p. 85). Two school psychology graduate students in their first or second year of graduate training delivered the intervention to groups of 7 to 8 students at a time in a small classroom (pp. 85, 88).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received “business as usual” mathematics instruction from their first grade teachers; therefore, they received 15 minutes less mathematics instruction than the intervention group (pp. 85-86).
Support for implementation
Approximately 20 percent of the intervention sessions were observed by school psychology graduate students using an implementation fidelity checklist. The checklist comprised essential implementation steps such as “Are the students sitting at their individual computers for the majority of their computer lab time?” and “Are students moving through the problem sets depicted on the computer screen?” (p. 86). The interventionists achieved implementation fidelity of 100 percent, as rated on the checklists, across the observed sessions (p. 86).
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).