Addressing Challenging Mathematics Standards with At-Risk Learners: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Fractions Intervention at Third Grade [Fractions intervention with word problem instruction (with or without self-regulation) vs. control]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Wang, Amber Y.; Preacher, Kristopher J.; Malone, Amelia S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Pachmayr, Rachel (2020). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED604271
-
examining84Students, grade3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Super Solvers–Third Grade)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Addition and Subtraction) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone and Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
6.08 |
1.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Ordering) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone and Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
5.18 |
2.24 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (13 NAEP items on general fraction knowledge) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone and Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
5.94 |
3.98 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Number Line) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone and Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
8.04 |
5.14 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Word Problems) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone and Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
8.81 |
4.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Single-Digit Multiplication) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone and Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
14.24 |
10.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Addition and Subtraction) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone;
|
6.11 |
1.72 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Ordering) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
5.48 |
2.24 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Addition and Subtraction) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
5.66 |
1.72 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (13 NAEP items on general fraction knowledge) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone;
|
6.37 |
3.98 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Ordering) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone;
|
4.92 |
2.24 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Number Line) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone;
|
8.21 |
5.14 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Number Line) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
7.86 |
5.14 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Word Problems) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
9.09 |
4.76 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Word Problems) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone;
|
8.62 |
4.76 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (13 NAEP items on general fraction knowledge) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
5.47 |
3.98 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Single-Digit Multiplication) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
14.10 |
10.76 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (13 NAEP items on general fraction knowledge) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone compared to Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
7.07 |
6.03 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Single-Digit Multiplication) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone;
|
13.24 |
10.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Number Line) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone compared to Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
9.50 |
9.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Addition and Subtraction) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone compared to Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
5.04 |
4.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Word Problems) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone compared to Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
9.67 |
10.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Ordering) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone compared to Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
4.73 |
5.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed fraction knowledge assessment (Fraction Battery, Single-Digit Multiplication) |
Super Solvers–Third Grade vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Super Solvers alone compared to Super Solvers with growth-mindset instruction;
|
17.19 |
18.86 |
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.
-
25% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
Race Black 56% Other or unknown 36% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 29 grade 3 classrooms in 8 elementary schools in one urban school district in the United States.
Study sample
The study included 84 grade 3 students who were identified as needing additional support in math based on a standardized screening. Of these 84 students, 49% were male, 25% were English language learners, 11% had a school-identified disability, and 55% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Approximately 56% were Black, 8% were White, and 36% were an unspecified race; 30% were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
Super Solvers is a supplemental math program designed to support elementary students who need assistance solving fraction problems and focuses on fraction magnitude. Teachers can use the program with individuals or small groups; in this study the intervention was administered to pairs of students. Students used the program for 3 sessions per week, lasting 35 minutes each, over a 13-week period. Each session included up to five activities (referred to as Multi-Minute, Problem Quest, Fraction Action, Fraction Flash, and Power Practice). The program focused on fraction magnitude and word problems. Fraction magnitude involved comparing, ordering, and placing fractions on number lines. Word problems presented narrative text illustrating fractions in everyday context. Students were assigned to one of two intervention groups to either receive the Super Solvers program alone or to receive Super Solvers with added attention to self-regulated learning with growth-mindset instruction embedded in the lessons. Specifically, in the latter group, the lessons included a discussion of growth mindset with self-assessments and goal setting. The main findings in this review combine both groups. Students received Super Solvers in place of some usual math instruction or in place of other instructional time. The study authors reported that students in the Super Solvers intervention condition received a similar total amount of math instruction, including the time during which they received Super Solvers, as those in the comparison condition.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual grade 3 mathematics instruction without a supplemental program. The study authors reported that students in the comparison condition received a similar total amount of math instruction as those in the Super Solvers intervention condition.
Support for implementation
Ten tutors who were research grant employees implemented the intervention. The tutors were provided training and feedback during weekly meetings.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Wang, Amber Y.; Preacher, Kristopher J.; Malone, Amelia S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Pachmayr, Rachel. (2021). Addressing Challenging Mathematics Standards with At-Risk Learners: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Fractions Intervention at Third Grade. Supplemental File. Exceptional Children, v87 n2 p163-182.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Super Solvers)
- 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 vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
T1 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem Instruction) + T2 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem + Self-Regulation Instruction) vs. control contrast;
|
6.08 |
1.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
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 vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
T1 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem Instruction) + T2 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem + Self-Regulation Instruction) vs. control contrast;
|
5.94 |
3.98 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Ordering (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
T1 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem Instruction) + T2 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem + Self-Regulation Instruction) vs. control contrast;
|
5.18 |
2.24 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Number Line (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
T1 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem Instruction) + T2 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem + Self-Regulation Instruction) vs. control contrast;
|
8.02 |
5.14 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised Word Problems (Malone & Fuchs, 2017) |
Super Solvers vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
T1 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem Instruction) + T2 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem + Self-Regulation Instruction) vs. control contrast;
|
8.81 |
4.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
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 vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
T1 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem Instruction) + T2 (Fraction Magnitude + Word Problem + Self-Regulation Instruction) vs. control contrast;
|
14.24 |
10.76 |
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.
-
25% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
Race Black 56% Other or unknown 36% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Study Details
Setting
Students in the study attended one of 29 classrooms in 8 schools in a large, metropolitan school district. The authors do not reveal where the school district was located.
Study sample
The sample was 48.81% male. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the sample was 55.95% African American, 8.33% White, 29.76% Hispanic, and 5.95% other. 54.76% of the sample qualified for the Federal School Lunch Program. 10.71% of the sample had a school-identified learning disability. 25.00% of the sample were English Learner students.
Intervention Group
For this contrast, the intervention condition is the combined fraction magnitude + word problem (FM + WP) group and fraction magnitude + word problem + self-regulation group (FM+WP+SR) group. All students in this group received 13 weeks of 35-minute explicit instruction, delivered to pairs of students 3 times per week. All students received the fraction magnitude and word problem components. The fraction magnitude component involved comparing, ordering, placing fractions on number lines, and equivalencies. The word problem (WP) component involved schema-based instruction with a focus on comparing and change fraction word problems. Some of the intervention group also received self-regulation component. The self-regulation component involved students evaluating progress and creating plans to reach goals. After two weeks, students graphed their score, set a goal to beat their highest score, and created a plan for how to meet their goal. While the those in the FM+WP+SR group had self regulation activities, those in the FM+WP group completed an extra word problem. The intervention condition differed from the comparison condition in 4 ways: (1) the comparison group focused on FM, (2) the intervention emphasized comparing fractions to benchmark fractions and the meaning of the numerator and denominator to help students understand relative FM, (3) the range of fractions was restricted to a specific pool of denominators, and (4) word problem instruction focused on identifying them as specific types of word problems to represent the structure of the problem.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business as usual math instruction, 89-90 minutes per day, 5 days a week. Eight comparison group students also received the school's supplemental math intervention. The comparison condition differed from the intervention condition in 4 ways: (1) the control group focused on part-whole understanding, (2) teachers used number lines and pictures to help students understand relative FM, (3) the range of fractions was not restricted, and (4) word problem instruction focused on operational procedures and drawing pictures.
Support for implementation
Tutors were observed in-person as well as audio-taped 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).