Peer Tutoring in Arithmetic for Children with Learning Disabilities. [Counting on method vs. control]
Beirne-Smith, Mary (1991). Exceptional Children, v57 n4 p330-37. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ425681
-
examining20Students, gradeNot reported
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Counting on tutoring—Beirne-Smith (1991))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Addition fact task set |
Counting on tutoring—Beirne-Smith (1991) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Counting on tutoring condition vs. control (Tutees);
|
40.10 |
26.30 |
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.
-
Female: 13%
Male: 87% -
Rural, 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
South
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at four schools in two districts in the southeastern region of the United States. Two of the schools were urban and two were rural.
Study sample
The tutees were primarily male (across all 30 tutees in the study, 87 percent were male; the authors did not provide sufficient information to calculate the gender breakdown for the contrast of interest in this review). All tutees had IEPs and had been classified as having a learning disability. They received services in a self-contained learning disabilities classroom. The authors stated that the 20 youth in the two treatment groups were on average age 8.7, but do not provide information on the age for the 10 students in the comparison condition. Therefore, age cannot be assessed for the youth in the contrast of interest in this review. The tutors were in grades 3-6.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition in this contrast is the counting on tutoring condition. Students were paired with a student tutor, completing 30-minute tutoring sessions (5 minutes start-up, 15 minutes tutoring, and 10 minutes shut-down) for four weeks. The tutors used a file folder that included 20 sets of three related addition facts in which the first number was kept constant and the second number increased by one (2+4, 2+5, 2+6). The tutors also had flashcards with each fact printed on them (total of 60 cards across all 20 sets). The tutoring involved three tasks. First, the tutor showed the tutee a file folder with the answers to the problems displayed, and used a standard procedure to highlight a rule for solving the problems--first they would share the rule ("Each time the addend increases by one the sum increases by one. Say it with me"), demonstrate answering questions themselves (for instance, 2 plus 3 equals 5, 2 plus 4 equals 6), ask the tutee to say the answers with the tutor, ask the tutor to say the answer themselves, and then ask the tutee to repeat the answer. In the second task, the tutor displayed the file folder and stated the rule. The tutor showed the tutee the side of the folder without the answers and asked the tutee to read each problem out loud and answer it in order. Then the tutor would randomly select problems for the tutee to answer. In the third task, the tutor used flashcards to ask the tutee to answer addition facts in a random order; tutees would read the problem and give the answer. When tutees completed five consecutive correct responses on all steps and tasks, they could complete that task set. After finishing a task set, the tutor would give the tutee flashcards with all previously learned facts and sort them into piles based on tutees' incorrect and correct responses. At the end of the session, the tutor would inform the tutee of how many questions they got right and told the tutee what they would work on in the next session.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. The students in this condition continued to receive classroom instruction on addition facts but did not receive any tutoring.
Support for implementation
The tutors were trained in groups of 2-5 students, during two 45-minute sessions. The tutors were taught the counting on intervention. The authors observed the tutors and met with the tutors at the end of each training session. Tutors were retrained as necessary.
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).