The Effects of Strategic Counting Instruction, with and without Deliberate Practice, on Number Combination Skill among Students with Mathematics Difficulties [Word problem instruction with strategic counting practice vs. control]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Powell, Sarah R.; Seethaler, Pamela M.; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack M.; Fuchs, Douglas; Hamlett, Carol L. (2010). Learning and Individual Differences, v20 n2 p89-100. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ872585
-
examining101Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Find X |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (WP with strategic counting practice vs BAU);
|
6.27 |
3.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Four subtests of the Grade 3 Math Battery (Fuchs, Powell, & Hamlett, 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (WP with strategic counting practice vs BAU);
|
0.39 |
-0.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Double-digit Addition & Subtraction (Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (WP with strategic counting practice vs BAU);
|
0.39 |
-0.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vanderbilt Story Problems Grade 2 |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (WP with strategic counting practice vs BAU);
|
0.40 |
-0.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Vanderbilt Story Problems Grade 3 |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (WP with strategic counting practice vs BAU);
|
0.04 |
-0.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
KeyMath-Revised Problem Solving |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (WP with strategic counting practice vs BAU);
|
0.14 |
-0.32 |
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: 43%
Male: 57% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Tennessee, Texas
-
Race Black 53% Other or unknown 38% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two urban school districts (Houston and Nashville). Students were from 13 schools in Nashville and 18 schools in Houston (p. 5).
Study sample
The study included 53% African American, 33% Hispanic, and 9% White students. Almost half (43%) of the students were female, 21% were English Learners, and 31% were students receiving special education. Three-quarters (72%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Students in the strategic counting with deliberate practice group received one-on-one tutoring outside the classroom (in addition to their regular reading and math instruction). Tutoring was offered 3 times per week for 16 weeks, with each session lasting 20-30 minutes. These 48 sessions were divided into four units. The introductory unit addressed basic skills needed to solve word problems, including how to use strategic counting to solve number combination problems, reviewed algorithms for answering double-digit addition and subtraction problems, taught how to solve a simple algebraic expression, and taught strategies for checking their work when solving word problems. The remaining three units focused on word problems, which required the basic skills taught in the introductory unit. Pirate Math was used as the word-problem tutoring protocol. Practice in strategic counting was incorporated into every lesson in the three word-problem units.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received their school’s regular math instruction with no additional tutoring added. In Nashville, the math classrooms used Houghton Mifflin Math. In Houston, schools selected their own math curriculum but the curriculum had to be guided by Houston’s Alignment Planning Guide, which was aligned with the Texas high-stakes test.
Support for implementation
Tutors were provided a script for each tutoring session. Tutors studied the scripts prior to tutoring sessions so that they could conduct the tutoring sessions without having to read directly from the script (p. 7).
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).