Effects of First-Grade Number Knowledge Tutoring with Contrasting Forms of Practice [Number knowledge tutoring with speeded practice vs. control]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Geary, David C.; Compton, Donald L.; Fuchs, Douglas; Schatschneider, Christopher; Hamlett, Carol L.; DeSelms, Jacqueline; Seethaler, Pamela M.; Wilson, Julie; Craddock, Caitlin F.; Bryant, Joan D.; Luther, Kurstin; Changas, Paul (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, v105 n1 p58-77. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1006608
-
examining401Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arithmetic Combinations (Fuchs Hamlett & Powell 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: T1: Number Knowledge + Speeded Practice VS BAU;
|
39.65 |
28.55 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Double-digit Addition & Subtraction (Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample T1 Number Knowledge + Speeded Practice vs BAU;
|
5.26 |
2.95 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Number Sets Test (Geary, Bailey, Hoard 2009) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample T1 Number Knowledge + Speeded Practice vs BAU;
|
0.04 |
-0.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Problems (Jordan & Hanich 2000) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample T1: Number Knowledge + speeded practice vs BAU;
|
4.26 |
3.74 |
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.
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
-
Race Black 70% Other or unknown 10% White 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Study Details
Setting
This study was supplemental tutoring for first graders at risk for math difficulties. It took place in an urban district in the Southeastern part of the United States. Researchers recruited 40 schools and 233 first-grade classes across four years.
Study sample
Of the 401 first grade students included in the sample, 49 percent of the sample was female. 70 percent of the sample was black, 20 percent was white, 6 percent was Hispanic, and 4 percent was Other. 14 percent of the sample had an identified disability and 86 percent were eligible for subsidized lunch. Students whose teachers identified them as not speaking English were excluded from the study.
Intervention Group
Galaxy Math + speeded practice is the intervention condition. Galaxy Math included a number sense intervention for 25 minutes that focused on understanding magnitude, equal sign understanding, number-after principle, addition and subtraction subsets, number families, magnitude comparisons, number line representations, and inverse relationship between addition and subtraction. The speeded practice included flashcards where students had to meet or beat their scores on addition and subtraction flashcards that coincided with what was being worked on in the 25 minute Galaxy Math lesson. Tutoring occurred for 16 weeks, 3 times per week, 30 min per session.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business as usual instruction and did not receive any tutoring from the research team.
Support for implementation
Tutors received an initial two-day training and participated in weekly meetings, where they received support during the 16-week intervention period. In these weekly meetings, tutors provided an update on each student and discussed challenges with other tutors and researchers. The group also reviewed upcoming topics and materials.
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).