Does an Integrated Focus on Fractions and Decimals Improve At-Risk Students' Rational Number Magnitude Performance? [Fractions intervention with decimal magnitude instruction vs. control]
Malone, Amelia S.; Fuchs, Lynn S.; Sterba, Sonya K.; Fuchs, Douglas; Foreman-Murray, Lindsay (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595127
-
examining152Students, grade4
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction calculations from the fraction battery-revised |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
18.52 |
8.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
14.99 |
13.77 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0-2 Fraction Number Line |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
-0.37 |
-0.52 |
Yes |
|
|
|
0-1 Decimal Number Line Task (Malone, Kelley, & Fuchs, 2014, adapted from Siegler et al., 2011) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
-0.27 |
-0.31 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Decimal Magnitude Assessment—similar items only (Malone et al., 2019) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
0.65 |
0.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Decimal Magnitude Assessment—dissimilar items only (Malone et al., 2019) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
0.20 |
0.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction word problems from the fraction battery-revised |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude + Decimal Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
11.04 |
8.97 |
Yes |
|
|
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: 56%
Male: 44% -
Urban
-
Race Black 42% Other or unknown 17% White 42% -
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
In 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 (the business as usual control group) was 46% male. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the comparison group was 46% African American, 18% white non-Hispanic, and 26% Hispanic. The race/ethnicity for the other 10% of students in this group was not specified. 13% of students in the comparison group were receiving special education services, and of these, 60% had a learning disability. 20% of students in the comparison group were classified as English learner students. 87% of the students in the comparison group qualified for free or reduced price lunch (p. 3).
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
In this contrast, the comparison condition was business-as-usual math instruction. The district’s fourth-grade math program was envisionMATH, which addresses fractions in two units: Understanding Fractions and Adding/Subtracting Fractions. The authors administered a questionnaire to district teachers, and results indicated that five of the 39 math teachers reported using only the Common Core Math Standards, one reported using only enVisionMATH, and 33 reported using a combination of the Common Core Math Standards, enVisionMATH, and the state standards. Researchers found that students in the comparison group focused more on part-whole understanding with respect to fractions and relied more on procedural methods when comparing fractions. Intervention group students, on the other hand, focused more on conceptual and magnitude understanding and emphasized more strongly the assessment of fraction and decimal magnitude with number lines. Additionally, intervention group activities restricted fraction denominators to 12, whereas comparison group activities included denominators to 100. Also, almost a third of teachers did not integrate decimal and fraction concepts, and when they did, they did not tend to include manipulatives and real-life applications or emphasis comparing, ordering, and number line placement strategies (as did the intervention tutors). Lastly, comparison group instruction utilized picture-drawing and the identification of key words, whereas the intervention instruction focused on identifying word problem types. Students across conditions (both intervention conditions and the comparison condition) received similar amounts of math instruction.
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. (page 6) 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).