Does an Integrated Focus on Fractions and Decimals Improve At-Risk Students' Rational Number Magnitude Performance? [Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component]
Malone, Amelia S.; Fuchs, Lynn S.; Sterba, Sonya K.; Fuchs, Douglas; Foreman-Murray, Lindsay (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595127
-
examining149Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component)
- 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 calculations from the fraction battery-revised |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
18.52 |
20.41 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
14.99 |
15.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Decimal Magnitude Assessment—similar items only (Malone et al., 2019) |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
0.65 |
0.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
0-1 Decimal Number Line Task (Malone, Kelley, & Fuchs, 2014, adapted from Siegler et al., 2011) |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
-0.27 |
-0.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
0-2 Fraction Number Line |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
-0.37 |
-0.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Decimal Magnitude Assessment—dissimilar items only (Malone et al., 2019) |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
0.20 |
0.22 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction word problems from the fraction battery-revised |
Fraction Face-off! with decimal magnitude component vs. Fraction Face-off! with additive word problem component |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention group vs. Fraction Magnitude intervention group contrast;
|
11.04 |
11.67 |
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.
-
21% English language learners -
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
Urban
-
Race Black 41% Other or unknown 19% White 40% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Not Hispanic or Latino 75%
Study Details
Setting
Participants were drawn from 58 fourth-grade classrooms in 12 schools in a large United States city.
Study sample
For this contrast, the intervention group (Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude) was 42% male. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the intervention group was 38% African American, 15% white non-Hispanic, and 24% Hispanic. The race/ethnicity for the other 23% of students in this group was not specified. 12% of students in the intervention group were receiving special education services, and of these, 67% had a learning disability. 22% of students in the intervention group were classified as English learner students. 89% of the students in the intervention group qualified for free or reduced price lunch. The comparison group in this contrast (Fraction Magnitude) was 45% male. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the comparison group was 44% African American, 16% white non-Hispanic, and 26% Hispanic. The race/ethnicity for the other 14% of students in this group was not specified. 16% of students in the comparison group were receiving special education services, and of these, 50% had a learning disability. 19% of students in the comparison group were classified as English learner students. 89% of the students in the comparison group qualified for free or reduced price lunch.
Intervention Group
For this review, the intervention condition is the Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude group. Lessons, which lasted 35-minutes, were taught to student dyads, three times per week for 12 weeks (36 lessons). Each lesson had the same structure: warm-up, training (tutors model new ideas), relay (guided practice, with students providing reasoning for their problem solving thinking), sprint (fluency building skills), and individual contest (students complete problems independently and are given feedback). The lessons used the Fraction Face-Off! program, which includes a self-regulation component. The lessons focus on fraction magnitude understanding, particularly by comparing fractions to benchmark fractions like 1/2. Tutors teach students about comparing and ordering fractions, finding equivalent fractions, and placing fractions on 0-1 and 0-2 number lines. Sessions use manipulatives (fraction tiles and fraction circles) and number lines. In the warm-up portion of the session beginning in lesson 7, the fraction magnitude + decimal magnitude group received the decimal magnitude portion of the intervention. In these sessions, instruction integrated fraction magnitude and decimal magnitude. Lessons 7-12 focused on writing decimal-fraction equivalencies with tenths, and Lessons 13-15 compared decimal tenths and fraction tenths. Lessons 16-18 focused on placing decimal tenths on a number line, Lessons 19-21 focused on decimal-fraction equivalencies with hundredths, Lessons 22-30 mixed tenths and hundredths, Lessons 31-33 involved ordering decimals (tenths and hundredths), and Lessons 34-36 were review.
Comparison Group
For this review, the comparison condition is the fraction magnitude intervention. The structure of the sessions was the same as the intervention condition, and students similarly received the Fractions Face-Off intervention. The only difference between the comparison and intervention conditions was during warm-up. Beginning in lesson 7, students in the comparison group received instruction on fraction applications, which involved working with fraction change-increase and change-decrease word problems. Students learned how to categorize word problems and then apply strategies that are specific to that problem type.
Support for implementation
Tutors were trained in two phases. The first phase, which was 20 hours in duration, focused on the manualized intervention. After practice delivering lessons with peers and achieving 95% implementation accuracy, tutors could begin working with the student participants. The second phase of training involved weekly meetings for additional support on upcoming teaching content. The researchers conducted frequent live observations during intervention sessions and audio-recorded all sessions to monitor implementation fidelity and provide 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).