Generative Strategies, Working Memory, and Word Problem Solving Accuracy in Children at Risk for Math Disabilities [Word problem instruction - complete condition vs. control (students with mathematics difficulties only)]
Swanson, H. Lee; Moran, Amber S.; Bocian, Kathleen; Lussier, Cathy; Zheng, Xinhua (2013). Learning Disability Quarterly, v36 n4 p203-214. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1019728
-
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Problem Accuracy (Swanson et al. 2013) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Complete intervention vs. control group with mathematical difficulties contrast;
|
0.83 |
0.48 |
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.
-
29% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- 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 2% Other or unknown 69% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 68% Not Hispanic or Latino 32%
Study Details
Setting
The study comprises students from 12 third-grade classrooms in two Southwest U.S. school districts. Tutoring in the intervention groups was delivered in small groups as a supplement to school-wide instruction in mathematics. Data were collected during the 2009–2010 academic year for the first cohort and the 2010–2011 academic year for the second cohort.
Study sample
The authors provide the following sample characteristics for the 91 students screened for MD in the study: 2 percent were Asian, 29 percent were white, 1 percent were mixed race, 68 percent were an unspecified race (listed as Hispanic but race identification unspecified), 51 percent were male, 49 percent were female, and 29 percent were English Language Learners. The authors do not provide sample characteristics for just the MD students or by assignment condition.
Intervention Group
For this review, the intervention group is the complete intervention condition. In each group, intervention instruction focused on generative strategies and working memory capacity to improve students’ word problem solving accuracy as a supplement to the students’ school-wide instruction in math. Intervention students received this instruction in small groups of two to four students during a 30-minute period twice a week for 10 weeks covering 20 total lessons. Lessons were delivered by trained tutors. Every student in the three intervention conditions received a booklet containing the 20 lessons. Each lesson contained five word problems, which were modified from the classroom text, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill’s Mathematics (Altier et al., 2009). Tutors followed a script in the presentation of the word problems across four lesson phases: warm-up, modeling (one problem), guided practice (one problem), and independent practice (three problems). In each phase, tutors focused on problem translation by directing students to paraphrase (via writing) propositions of each word problem. The Complete condition directed students to restate the question as well as relevant and irrelevant propositions. Students in all conditions were ultimately tasked to solve each presented word problem.
Comparison Group
For this review, the comparison condition was students with math difficulties in the control group. Students received their business as usual instruction from their classroom teacher, using the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill’s Mathematics: Concepts, Skills, and Problem Solving–Third Grade (the intervention group also received this curriculum during their usual instruction). Comparison students were also exposed to small group work related to word-problems but only participated in the first phase of the small group work, which consisted of working on math problems that required them to find missing values. As with the intervention condition, this occurred for 10-weeks, twice a week.
Support for implementation
Tutors received scripted lessons and student booklets. Each tutor practiced delivering lessons to other tutors to receive feedback on implementation fidelity. Additional support was provided to those who fell below 80 percent on a implementation fidelity rubric.
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).