Effects of Cognitive Strategy Interventions and Cognitive Moderators on Word Problem Solving in Children at Risk for Problem Solving Difficulties [Word problem instruction with heuristic strategy plus visual schematic diagrams vs. control]
Swanson, H. Lee; Lussier, Cathy; Orosco, Michael (2013). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, v28 n4 p170-183. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1026699
-
examining38Students, grade3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) and Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3) Composite |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
General-heuristic + visual-schematic intervention group vs. control group contrast;
|
1.11 |
0.71 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Mathematical Abilities Test--Story Problems |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
General-heuristic + visual-schematic intervention group vs. control group contrast;
|
0.66 |
0.23 |
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.
-
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Race Asian 7% Black 7% Other or unknown 34% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 14% Not Hispanic or Latino 86%
Study Details
Setting
The study includes 38 Grade 3 students with MD from 21 classrooms.
Study sample
The authors only describe the demographic characteristics of the entire sample of 120, which includes students assigned to all four conditions and students with and without math difficulties. The racial and ethnic composition of the sample was as follows: 52.5% Anglo, 14.2% Hispanic, 6.7% African American, 6.7% Asian, and 20% mixed race/ethnicity or other. 45.8% of the sample was female. Specific information about the SES of participants was not provided in the article. Based on information about students eligibility for free or reduced price lunch, parent education and parent occupation, the authors concluded that the sample was primarily of low to middle SES.
Intervention Group
The intervention was delivered in small groups of 2-4 students during 30 minute lessons three times per week for 8 weeks. Every lesson followed the same format, with four phases: warm-up, instruction, guided practice, and independent practice. During warm-up, which lasted 3-5 minutes, children solved calculation problems and solved puzzles. During instruction, which lasted 5 minutes, the tutor instructed children to mark the different parts of the word problems in specific ways. They underlined the question sentence, circled any sentences with numbers in them, put squares around key words, and crossed out any irrelevant information. The tutor then directed the student to determine which operation (i.e., addition and/or subtraction) was needed and then solve the problem. Next, instruction was provided on constructing two types of diagrams: those that are used to represent parts and the whole and those that were used to compare quantities. A question mark was used as a placeholder for the missing number in the diagrams. After completing the diagram, students were instructed to solve the problem. During the guided practice phase, which lasted 10 minutes, children worked on three practice problems. During this time, tutors provided feedback to students on how they were applying the steps and strategies learned during the instruction phase. During the independent practice phase, which lasted 10 minutes, children worked on three more problems without feedback from the tutor.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual classroom instruction using the enVisionMATH Learning Curriculum (Pearson Publishers, 2009).
Support for implementation
The 6 tutors delivered scripted lessons. Each tutor was randomly observed 6 times and evaluated on all parts of the lesson for treatment fidelity.
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.
-
Swanson, H. Lee; Lussier, Catherine M.; Orosco, Michael J. (2015). Cognitive Strategies, Working Memory, and Growth in Word Problem Solving in Children with Math Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, v48 n4 p339-358.
-
Swanson, H. Lee; Lussier, Catherine M.; Orosco, Michael J. (2015). Cognitive Strategies, Working Memory, and Growth in Word Problem Solving in Children with Math Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, v48 n4 p339-358.
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).