Improving At-Risk Learners' Understanding of Fractions [Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Schumacher, Robin F.; Long, Jessica; Namkung, Jessica; Hamlett, Carol L.; Cirino, Paul T.; Jordan, Nancy C.; Siegler, Robert; Gersten, Russell; Changas, Paul (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, v105 n3 p683-700. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054396
-
examining143Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems)
- 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 |
Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems |
1 Week |
Multiplicative Word Problem Intervention vs. Additive Word Problem Intervention ;
|
19.67 |
21.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems |
1 Week |
Multiplicative Word Problem Intervention vs. Additive Word Problem Intervention;
|
15.20 |
14.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Number Line |
Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems |
1 Week |
Multiplicative Word Problem Intervention vs. Additive Word Problem Intervention;
|
0.17 |
0.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Multiplicative Word Problems from the 2012 Fraction Battery |
Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems |
1 Week |
Multiplicative Word Problem Intervention vs. Additive Word Problem Intervention;
|
13.48 |
8.31 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Additive Word Problems from the Fraction Battery–2012 |
Fraction Face-Off! with multiplicative word problems vs. Fraction Face-Off! with additive word problems |
1 Week |
Multiplicative Word Problem Intervention vs. Additive Word Problem Intervention;
|
13.49 |
15.31 |
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.
-
17% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Race Black 58% Other or unknown 6% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 23% Not Hispanic or Latino 78%
Study Details
Setting
The sample includes 143 at-risk 4th grade students from 45 general education classrooms in 14 schools.
Study sample
The sample consisted of at-risk students. The authors defined risk as performance below the 35th percentile at the start of fourth grade on a broad-based calculations test (Wide Range Achievement Test–4 [WRAT]; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006). They sampled half the at-risk students from the 15th percentile and the other half between the 15th and 34th percentiles. Two-subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999) were administered to students who met the risk criterion and 18 students with T-scores below the 9th percentile on both subtests were excluded. The sample of 143 students includes 54% females, 17% English learners, 89.5% free/reduced lunch, 17% receiving special education, 57.5% African American, 14% White, 22.5% Hispanic, and 6% Other.
Intervention Group
The Multiplicative Word Problem (M-WP) condition included 36 lessons from the Fraction Face-Off! intervention program (Fuchs, Schumacher, Malone, & Fuchs, 2015). Each lesson was 35 minutes long and was delivered to students in groups of 2 by tutors hired by the research team. A focus of the lessons was the measurement interpretation of fractions, which involved comparing, ordering, placing fractions on a number line, equivalencies, and the use of manipulatives. Two multiplicative word problems were taught: "splitting" and "grouping." The M-WP condition limited the denominators to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 and the pool of equivalent fractions and reducing activities to 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, and 1/1. It focused on using words to explain thinking, identifying problems as belonging to word problem types, and representing the structure of word problems using arrays.
Comparison Group
The Additive Word Problem (A-WP) condition included 36 lessons from the Fraction Face-Off! intervention program (Fuchs, Schumacher, Malone, & Fuchs, 2015). Each lesson was 35 minutes long and was delivered to students in groups of 2 by tutors hired by the research team. A focus of the lessons was the measurement interpretation of fractions, which involved comparing, ordering, placing fractions on a number line, equivalencies, and the use of manipulatives. Two additive word problems were taught: "increase" and "decrease." The A-WP condition limited the denominators to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 and the pool of equivalent fractions and reducing activities to 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, and 1/1. It focused on using words to explain thinking, identifying problems as belonging to word problem types, and representing the structure of word problems using a number sentence.
Support for implementation
The authors conducted follow-up trainings for tutors biweekly for 1 hour to provide opportunities for (a) dynamic feedback as the fraction lessons progressed in difficulty and (b) solving problems related to students’ challenging behavior and skill-level differences in dyads.
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).