WWC review of this study

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

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    149
     Students
    , grade
    4

Reviewed: February 2023

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Rational Numbers Computation outcomes—Substantively important negative effect found for the domain
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;
149 students

18.52

20.41

No

--
Rational Numbers Knowledge outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
149 students

14.99

15.74

No

--
Rational Numbers Magnitude Understanding/Relative Magnitude Understanding outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
149 students

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;
149 students

-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;
149 students

-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;
149 students

0.20

0.22

No

--
Rational Numbers Word Problems/Problem Solving outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
149 students

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.

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%

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top