Malone, A. S., Fuchs, L. S., Sterba, S. K., Fuchs, D., & Foreman-Murray, L. (2019). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59.
Reviewed: February 2020
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.
|
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 intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
20.41 |
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 intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
15.74 |
13.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
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 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 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 intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
0.25 |
0.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Decimal Magnitude Assessment—dissimilar items only (Malone et al., 2019) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Fraction Magnitude intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
0.22 |
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 intervention vs. Control group contrast;
|
11.67 |
8.97 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 45% | |
| Other or unknown | 12% | |
| White | 43% |
| Hispanic | 26% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 74% |
Participants were drawn from 58 fourth-grade classrooms in 12 schools in a large United States city.
The intervention group (Fractions Magnitude intervention) 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. The comparison group (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.
For this review, the intervention condition is the Fraction Magnitude intervention 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. During the warm-up of each lessons beginning in lesson 7, students 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.
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.
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. To determine fidelity, they randomly selected 1322 (46%) of 2880 recordings across 80 groups and 36 sessions. Research assistants listened to the recordings and used a checklist to assess implementation fidelity.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube