Effects of a Research-Based Intervention to Improve Seventh-Grade Students' Proportional Problem Solving: A Cluster Randomized Trial
Jitendra, Asha K.; Harwell, Michael R.; Dupuis, Danielle N.; Karl, Stacy R.; Lein, Amy E.; Simonson, Gregory; Slater, Susan C. (2015). Journal of Educational Psychology v107 n4 p1019-1034. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572835
-
examining1,854Students, grade7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Schema-based instruction)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GMADE): Process and Applications subtest |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.23 |
14.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed Proportional Problem Solving (PPS) test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.52 |
15.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed Proportional Problem Solving (PPS) test |
Schema-based instruction vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
16.11 |
15.25 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 49% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Midwest
-
Race Asian 6% Black 8% Other or unknown 11% White 75% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 58 middle schools across 50 school districts in an upper Midwest state. The majority of school districts were located in a rural (38) setting, while eight school districts were located in a suburban setting and four school districts were located in an urban setting.
Study sample
A total of 1,854 students in grade 7 mathematics classes were included in the study. The 1,854 students in middle schools were taught by 82 teachers in 58 schools. Approximately 49 percent of the students were male, 48 percent were female, and 3 percent did not report gender. Approximately 75 percent of the students were White, 8 percent were Black, 6 percent were Asian, and 11 percent did not report a race. Approximately 7 percent of students were Hispanic. In addition, 6 percent of students were English learners, 40 percent were receiving free/reduced price lunch, and 10 percent of students had an unspecified disability.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group received schema-based instruction (SBI), a mathematical program designed to assist students in their problem-solving reasoning that involves proportional relationships. The program consisted of two units: Ratio/Proportion and Percent. Each unit included ten 50-minute lessons with an additional lesson at the end of the Percent unit to provide additional practice on solving problems related to ratio, proportion, and percent. The SBI instructional approach included four instructional practices: (1) explicit modeling problem solving and metacognitive strategies; (2) activating the mathematical structure of problems; (3) visually mapping information using schematic diagrams; and (4) developing procedural flexibility. SBI was provided during regularly scheduled grade 7 mathematics classes. Instruction was administered to the whole class five days a week for six weeks.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual grade 7 mathematics instruction. Topics discussed included the same content taught in the intervention classes but using the district-adopted textbooks. There were 10 different textbooks used across districts, which included instructional components similar to SBI but were not overlapping (i.e., identifying the problem type, visuals, modeling of problem solving and metacognitive strategies, and multiple solution strategies). The authors do not specify the length of instruction for the comparison group.
Support for implementation
One of the authors of the SBI program led a two-day (16 hour) professional development session to teachers assigned to the intervention condition. The training familiarized teachers with the lessons and scope of the program, taught the critical SBI practices, and provided teaching materials and a detailed teacher guide.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Jitendra, Asha K.; Harwell, Michael R.; Dupuis, Danielle N.; Karl, Stacy R. (2016). A Randomized Trial of the Effects of Schema-Based Instruction on Proportional Problem-Solving for Students with Mathematics Problem-Solving Difficulties.
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).