Effects of Small-Group Tutoring with and without Validated Classroom Instruction on At-Risk Students' Math Problem Solving: Are Two Tiers of Prevention Better than One? [Word problem tutoring in Tier 1 and Tier 2 vs. word problem tutoring in Tier 2 only]
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Craddock, Caitlin; Hollenbeck, Kurstin N.; Hamlett, Carol L.; Schatschneider, Christopher (2008). Journal of Educational Psychology, v100 n3 p491-509 2008. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ807859
-
examining164Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction–Fuchs et al. (2008))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math problem solving - immediate, near, & far transfer |
Small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction–Fuchs et al. (2008) vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring with Tier 1 SBI intervention vs. Tier 2 tutoring without Tier 1 SBI intervention;
|
43.55 |
29.20 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math problem solving - immediate transfer |
Small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction–Fuchs et al. (2008) vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring with Tier 1 SBI intervention vs. Tier 2 tutoring without Tier 1 SBI intervention ;
|
72.82 |
45.41 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Math problem solving - near transfer |
Small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction–Fuchs et al. (2008) vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring with Tier 1 SBI intervention vs. Tier 2 tutoring without Tier 1 SBI intervention ;
|
37.46 |
21.77 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Math problem solving - far transfer |
Small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction–Fuchs et al. (2008) vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Tier 2 SBI tutoring with Tier 1 SBI intervention vs. Tier 2 tutoring without Tier 1 SBI intervention ;
|
20.37 |
20.42 |
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.
-
1% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
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 Black 63% White 28% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 5% Not Hispanic or Latino 95%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Grade 3 classrooms across four academic years in a metropolitan school district of the Southeast United States. SBI classroom instruction was implemented at the classroom level, and SBI tutoring was implemented in small groups.
Study sample
Of the 164 AR students in this contrast, 46 percent were female, 73 percent were eligible for subsidized lunch, 65 percent were African American, 28 percent were European America, and seven percent identified as other. Also, five percent were Hispanic, one percent were English language learners and 12 percent were in special education.
Intervention Group
The classroom-level SBI instruction comprised three weeks of researcher-designed general math problem-solving instruction plus 13 weeks of researcher-designed SBI instruction. Cohorts 1 and 4 used the standard version of SBI classroom instruction. Cohorts 2 and 3 used a variant designed to strengthen Hot Math SBI. The 13 weeks of classroom SBI instruction included four three-week SBI units each with six lessons. Sessions lasted between 30 and 40 minutes totaling roughly 200 minutes of SBI instruction per unit and 856 minutes of SBI instruction across all four units. In this contrast, both groups received SBI tutoring for four three-week SBI units in small groups of 2 to 4 students. Three tutoring sessions were conducted each week with two cumulative review sessions. Each tutoring session lasted 20 to 30 minutes or roughly 225 minutes per unit and 940 minutes across all units. With respect to delivery, research assistants and not classroom teachers delivered the researcher-designed general problem-solving strategies instruction during the first 3 weeks of classroom instruction. Research assistants also delivered classroom and tutoring SBI during the final 13 weeks of instruction.
Comparison Group
For this contrast, the control group received no classroom-level SBI intervention. As with the intervention group, the control group in this contrast received SBI tutoring for four three-week SBI units in small groups of 2 to 4 students. Three tutoring sessions were conducted each week with two cumulative review sessions. Each tutoring session lasted 20 to 30 minutes or roughly 225 minutes per unit and 940 minutes across all units. With respect to delivery, research assistants and not classroom teachers delivered the researcher-designed general problem-solving strategies instruction during the first 3 weeks of classroom instruction. Research assistants also delivered classroom and tutoring SBI during the final 13 weeks of instruction.
Support for implementation
All research assistants (RAs) received a one day training session that provided with instructions, demonstrations, and scripted materials to study. RAs then practiced in pairs before conducting one lesson for a project coordinator who graded the delivery of the instruction. RAs were also given a three-hour training before the start of each unit, and all sessions were audiotaped from which RAs received corrective 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).