The Effect of Explicit and Direct Generative Strategy Training and Working Memory on Word Problem-Solving Accuracy in Children at Risk for Math Difficulties [Word problem instruction - complete condition vs. word problem instruction - restate condition]
Swanson, H. Lee; Moran, Amber; Lussier, Cathy; Fung, Wenson (2014). Learning Disability Quarterly, v37 n2 p111-123. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022817
-
examining42Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Schema Assessment Task – modified for children |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Restate intervention group vs complete intervention group intervention group;
|
0.69 |
0.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Mathematical Abilities Test and KeyMath problem-solving subtests |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Restate intervention group vs complete intervention group;
|
0.59 |
1.10 |
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: 44%
Male: 56% -
- 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 2% Other or unknown 87% White 11% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 87%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in third-grade classrooms in four elementary schools in two school districts located in the Southwest region of the United States.
Study sample
The authors do not provide sample characteristics by group. The entire study sample (across all 4 groups) included 46 males and 36 females. Eleven percent of the sample was Caucasian, 87% Hispanic, and 2% Asian. Out of the full sample of 82, 54 students learned Spanish as their first language but the authors also note that all of these students earned a proficient score on the California English Language Development Test.
Intervention Group
Students in the restate intervention condition participated in 20 lessons, delivered twice per week for 10 weeks. Each lesson lasted 30 minutes. Each lesson proceeded through four phases. During the warm-up phase, which lasted about 5 minutes, children solved calculation problems and puzzles. This was followed by the modeling phase, which also lasted about 5 minutes. During this phase, instruction only focused on the question and the goal, unlike the complete intervention condition (which served as the comparison for this review). During this phase, students were asked to tell the tutor what the question was, write down a paraphrased version of it, and then solve the problem. During the guided practice phase, the tutor read another problem out loud to the students. Students were then prompted to write the question in their own words in their notebooks. Children shared what they wrote with each other. Finally, the students solved the problem. Once students demonstrated that they had mastered the steps in the guided practice phase, they moved on to the independent practice phase, which lasted 15 minutes. During this time, children worked on three problems individually using the strategies they had used during guided practice.
Comparison Group
Students in the complete condition also participated in 20 lessons, delivered twice per week for 10 weeks. Each lesson lasted 30 minutes. Each lesson proceeded through four phases. During the warm-up phase, which lasted about 5 minutes, children solved calculation problems and puzzles. This was followed by the modeling phase, which also lasted about 5 minutes. During this phase, the tutor read a word problem out loud and asked students to identify what the problem was asking (the question), what information was needed to answer the question (the relevant propositions), and what information was included in the problem that was not necessary for answering the question (the irrelevant propositions). Then the tutor asked the students to explain what they would do to solve the problem and they solved the problem together. During the guided practice phase, the tutor read another problem out loud to the students. Students were then prompted to write the question and the relevant and irrelevant propositions in their own words in their notebooks. Children shared what they wrote with each other. Finally, the students solved the problem. Once students demonstrated that they had mastered the steps in the guided practice phase, they moved on to the independent practice phase, which lasted 15 mintues. During this time, children worked on three problems individually using the strategies they had used during guided practice.
Support for implementation
Tutors participated in a four-hour training session. During the training session, tutors practiced delivering to other tutors and the project director each of the 20 scripted lessons. Additionally, the project director and project coordinator observed each tutor at three or four random times and assessed the sessions using a fidelity rubric checklist, which covered each phase of the lessons and was sensitive to intervention condition. Observations of tutors occurred during 17.5 percent of the lessons, and mean implementation fidelity was 96 percent with restate condition, 93.1 percent and 97.1 percent with the complete condition (range = 80 percent to 100 percent). Any tutor who fell below 90 percent received additional assistance, direct coaching, and immediate follow-up observations. Before a tutor could move from the guided practice phase to the independent practice phase, all children in a given intervention condition needed to demonstrate knowledge and correct usage of the strategies targeted in a given lesson.
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).