Does Cognitive Strategy Training on Word Problems Compensate for Working Memory Capacity in Children with Math Difficulties? [Word problem instruction - verbal plus visual strategies condition vs. control]
Swanson, H. Lee (2014). Journal of Educational Psychology, v106 n3 p831-848. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054473
-
examining33Students, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-III, arithmetic subtest |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined verbal + visual strategies intervention group vs. control group contrast;
|
1.46 |
0.88 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Mathematical Abilities Test (CMAT) - Story Problem Subtest |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined verbal + visual strategies intervention group vs. control group contrast;
|
0.26 |
0.16 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
West
-
Race Asian 5% Black 9% Other or unknown 29% White 57% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 22 third-grade classrooms in two charter schools within a Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) district in the southwestern United States. These schools enroll a large number of students with learning disabilities (20% of students have special needs).
Study sample
The authors did not provide the demographic characteristics for the subgroup of students with math difficulties, which is the focus of this SRG. Based on the total study sample (N=147), about half (56.6%) of students were white, 20.4% were Hispanic, 8.8% were Black, 5.4% were Asian, and 8.9% were mixed race or other. About half (50.3%) of the study participants were female
Intervention Group
For the contrast reviewed here, the intervention group is the verbal + visual intervention group. Each study group received 20 30-minute scripted lessons, administered 3 times a week over 8 weeks. Trained tutors delivered lessons to small groups of 4-5 children. The tutors were doctoral or masters-level graduate students. Students received a booklet at the beginning of each lesson to record their answers. Each lesson within the booklet consisted of 4 phases: (1) warm-up, (2) strategy instruction, (3) guided practice, and (4) independent practice. During the warm-up stage (3-5 minutes), students were asked to solve simple problems (such as 9+2=x or x-5=1) and a set of puzzles based on problems using geometric shapes. During the strategy instruction phase (5 minutes), children were instructed or reviewed rules for solving problems (e.g., “to find the whole, you need to add the parts”). In the verbal + visual condition, children were instructed to use 6 verbal strategy steps (find and underline the question, circle the numbers, put a square around the key word, cross out not needed information, decide on what needs to be done, and solve it) and 2 types of diagrams (parts making up a whole and comparison of quantities). During guided practice (10 minutes), children worked on three practice word problems with tutors provided feedback. In the independent practice phase (10 minutes), students worked independently (without feedback) to solve three additional word problems. Students’ progress was assessed at the end of each session.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition in this contrast is the control group. Students in the control condition did not receive any supplemental instruction and received business as usual math instruction using the enVisionMATH Learning Curriculum.
Support for implementation
Intervention conditions were administered by trained tutors. Intervention fidelity was assessed by two independent observers who observed 6 randomly selected lessons for each tutor.
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).