Effects of Super Solvers fractions intervention for at-risk third graders: A research report [Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction]
Wang, A. Y., Fuchs, L. S., Preacher, K. J., Fuchs, D., Malone, A. S., & Pachmayr, R. (2019). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. http://frg.vkcsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Effects-of-Super-Solvers-Fractions-Intervention-for-At-Risk-Third-Graders.pdf.
-
examining55Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Addition and Subtraction (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction |
1 Month |
Fraction magnitude + word problem group vs. fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group contrast;
|
5.35 |
4.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
13 released items from 1990-2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction |
1 Month |
Fraction magnitude + word problem group vs. fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group contrast;
|
6.10 |
6.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Ordering (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction |
1 Month |
Fraction magnitude + word problem group vs. fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group contrast;
|
5.26 |
5.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Number Line (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction |
1 Month |
Fraction magnitude + word problem group vs. fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group contrast;
|
8.78 |
9.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Word Problems (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
1 Month |
Full sample. FM+WP vs. FM+WP+SR;
|
10.21 |
10.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Word Problems (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction |
1 Month |
Fraction magnitude + word problem group vs. fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group contrast;
|
10.16 |
10.35 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Single-Digit Multiplication (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers without embedded self-regulation instruction vs. Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction |
1 Month |
Fraction magnitude + word problem group vs. fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group contrast;
|
18.11 |
18.66 |
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.
-
22% English language learners -
Female: 55%
Male: 45% -
Urban
-
Race Black 62% Other or unknown 31% White 7% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24% Not Hispanic or Latino 76%
Study Details
Setting
Students in the study attended one of 29 classooms in 8 schools in a large, metropolitan school district. The authors do not reveal where the school district was located.
Study sample
The intervention group was 42.3% male. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the intervention group was 61.5% African American, 7.7% White, 19.2% Hispanic, and 11.5% other. 57.7% of the intervention group qualified for the Federal School Lunch Program. 3.8% of the intervention group children had a school-identified learning disability. 19.2% of the intervention group students were English Learner students. The comparison group was 48.3% male. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the comparison group was 62.1% African American, 6.9% White, 27.6% Hispanic, and 3.4% other. 55.2% of the comparison group qualified for the Federal School Lunch Program. 6.9% of the comparison group children had a school-identified learning disability. 24.1% of the comparison group students were English Learner students.
Intervention Group
For this contrast, the intervention condition is the fraction magnitude + word problem group (the Super Solvers group). The intervention included 13 weeks of 35-minute explicit instruction, delivered to pairs of students 3 times per week. The fraction magnitude component involved comparing, ordering, placing fractions on number lines, and equivalencies. The word problem component involved schema-based instruction with a focus on comparing and change fraction word problems. While the comparison group had self regulation activities, intervention group members completed an extra word problem.
Comparison Group
For this contrast, the comparison condition is the fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group (the Super Solvers with embedded self-regulation instruction group). This intervention included 13 weeks of 35-minute explicit instruction, delivered to pairs of students 3 times per week. The intervention was the same as what the intervention group received, with the addition of self-regulation. The self-regulation component involved students evaluating progress and creating plans to reach goals. Every two weeks, students graphed their score, set a goal to beat their highest score, and created a plan for how to meet their goal.
Support for implementation
Tutors were observed in-person as well as audiotaped to check for fidelity of implementation. They attended weekly meetings. During these meetings, training was provided for upcoming sessions, an opportunity was provided to engage in problem-solving about any issues they were having, and they received feedback.
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).