The Effects of Mathematics Strategy Instruction for Children with Serious Problem-Solving Difficulties [materials, verbal, and visual strategies condition vs. materials-only condition]
Swanson, H. Lee; Orosco, Michael J.; Lussier, Cathy M. (2014). Exceptional Children, v80 n2 p149-168. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1048482
-
examining29Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Materials, verbal, and visual strategies instruction— Swanson et al. (2014))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-III, arithmetic subtest |
Materials, verbal, and visual strategies instruction— Swanson et al. (2014) vs. Materials-only instruction— Swanson et al. (2014) |
0 Days |
Verbal + Visual intervention group vs Materials only intervention group contrast;
|
0.74 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TOMA - Test of Mathematics Abilities - problem solving subtests |
Materials, verbal, and visual strategies instruction— Swanson et al. (2014) vs. Materials-only instruction— Swanson et al. (2014) |
0 Days |
Verbal + Visual intervention group vs Materials only intervention group contrast;
|
0.69 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
STAR: California Dept. of Ed Standardized Testing and Reporting (2009), subset of items |
Materials, verbal, and visual strategies instruction— Swanson et al. (2014) vs. Materials-only instruction— Swanson et al. (2014) |
0 Days |
Verbal + Visual intervention group vs Materials only intervention group contrast;
|
0.78 |
1.01 |
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: 43%
Male: 57% -
- 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
California
-
Race Asian 6% Black 7% Other or unknown 27% White 60% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 16% Not Hispanic or Latino 84%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a southern California public school district.
Study sample
Of the 193 third-grade children randomized to conditions, 83 were female and 110 were male (page 152). The sample included 116 White, 30 Hispanic, 13 African-American, 12 Asian, and 22 mixed ethnicity students. As determined by free lunch participation, parent education, and occupation, the sample ranged from lower middle class to upper middle socioeconomic status (SES; the average was low to middle SES). Participants were identified as at risk for persistent difficulties in problem-solving performance (as determined by norm-referenced story problem-solving math tests); however, most students in the sample were not diagnosed with specific learning disabilities in mathematics. The average age in months of students identified as at risk for math difficulties (MD) was 103.53 (SD=5.98), and the average age in months of students identified as not at risk for math difficulties (non-MD) was 104.41 (SD=5.48). These sample characteristics are not provided by study condition, and they are not provided by classification (MD, non-MD). Therefore, there is not information on the specific sample for this contrast (Verbal + Visual intervention group vs Materials only intervention group contrast).
Intervention Group
For this contrast, the intervention condition is the verbal + visual intervention group. This condition included 20 scripted lessons administered by tutors (graduate students or paraprofessionals) over a period of 8 weeks. Each lesson was 30 minutes in duration and administered 3 times a week in groups of 2-4 children. At the beginning of each lesson, children received a booklet, where they recorded all responses. Each lesson consisted of four phases. The warm-up phase (3-5 minutes) included calculation of problems and puzzles based on problems that used geometric shapes. The direct instruction phase (about 5 minutes) began with the tutor reading or reviewing rule cards or strategies. Students learned a specific strategy for solving problems that included both visual and verbal cues. For the verbal steps, students were taught to identify (1) the question sentence and underline it, (2) the sentences with the numbers and circle the numbers, (3) the key word and put a square around it, and (4) irrelevant sentences and cross them out. From there, students would figure out which operation was needed (addition, subtraction or both) and solve the word problem. For the visual steps, the students learned two diagramming strategies: one for parts comprising a whole and one for comparing quantities. Finally, students were taught to use the diagrams with the numbers found in the word problem and identify the missing information. The third phase (10 minutes) was guided practice, during which students completed three practice problems and received tutor feedback. Each session ended with the fourth phase, independent practice (10 minutes) in which students solved three word problems on their own without feedback.
Comparison Group
For the contrast in this review, the comparison condition is the materials only intervention group. The structure and timing of the comparison group sessions was the same as the intervention group. However, students in the materials only condition did not participate in activities with overt strategy instruction.
Support for implementation
Independent observers (including a post-doctoral student, a non-tutoring graduate student, and the project director) evaluated the accuracy with which each tutor implemented instructional sequences during six randomly selected instructional sessions.
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).