Zippert, Erica L.; Douglas, Ashli-Ann; Tian, Fang; Rittle-Johnson, Bethany (2021). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED610851
Reviewed: January 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed Teacher-Based Patterning Assessment (TBP) |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Literacy and numeracy tutoring, and business-as-usual |
4 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.18 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed Teacher-Based Patterning Assessment (TBP) |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Business as usual |
4 Days |
Intervention and business-as-usual sample;
|
-0.11 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed Teacher-Based Patterning Assessment (TBP) |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Literacy and numeracy tutoring |
4 Days |
Intervention and literacy and numeracy sample;
|
-0.25 |
-0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA) Short Form – General Math |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Literacy and numeracy tutoring, and business-as-usual |
4 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.40 |
-0.43 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA) Short Form – General Math |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Business as usual |
4 Days |
Intervention and business-as-usual sample;
|
-0.40 |
-0.43 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA) Short Form – General Math |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Literacy and numeracy tutoring |
4 Days |
Intervention and literacy and numeracy sample;
|
-0.39 |
-0.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA) Short Form – General Numeracy |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Literacy and numeracy tutoring, and business-as-usual |
4 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.09 |
0.06 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA) Short Form – General Numeracy |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Literacy and numeracy tutoring |
4 Days |
Intervention and literacy and numeracy sample;
|
0.09 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA) Short Form – General Numeracy |
Repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring—Zippert et al. (2022). vs. Business as usual |
4 Days |
Intervention and business-as-usual sample;
|
0.09 |
0.12 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 29% | |
| Other or unknown | 13% | |
| White | 54% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
The study took place across 5 public and 7 private preschools in the United States.
A total of 211 children between the ages of 4 and 5 were included in the study. The 211 preschool children were taught by 41 teachers across 12 preschools. Approximately 56% of the children were male and 6% received special education services in school. Fifty-four percent were White, 29% were black, 4% were Asian, and 13% did not report a race. Nine percent were Hispanic or Latino and 91% were not Hispanic or Latino.
The repeating patterning and numeracy tutoring intervention was a 2-week program designed to improve preschoolers’ knowledge of and ability to duplicate, extend, and abstract repeating patterns, and identify the unit that repeats in those patterns. It also aimed to help children develop a conceptual understanding that numbers in the counting sequence follow a specific rule. The tutoring used tasks that were developed from an established math curriculum for preschool-aged children (Real Math Building Blocks) and the learning trajectory for repeating patterning that guided its development (Clements and Sarama, 2007). The repeating patterning component made use of variety of manipulatives and strategies: tangram blocks, unifix cubes, beads, pipe cleaners, pompoms, and use of body movements. The numeracy component involved the use of unifix cubes, foam cubes, toy bugs, and songs. The intervention was offered in a small group; children were paired based on their patterning ability at pretest. A graduate-level research assistant provided direct instruction, modeling, and feedback for five 30-minute sessions. In each session, twenty minutes were dedicated to patterning activities and 10 minutes were dedicated to numeracy activities. The tutoring sessions were completed over 2 weeks with no more than 3 sessions per week.
There were two comparison groups in the study: a literacy and numeracy tutoring group and a group that received no tutoring (a business-as-usual comparison). The literacy and numeracy group received tutoring that did not involve repeating patterning. The literacy component consisted of instruction on oral language and early literacy skills taken from an established literacy curriculum, Opening the World of Learning, by Dickinson et al. (2014). The numeracy instruction was the same as in the intervention condition. Like the intervention condition, a graduate-level research assistant delivered direct instruction, modeling, and feedback for five 30-minute sessions to pairs of children over the 2-week period. Twenty minutes were dedicated for literacy activities and 10 minutes were dedicated to numeracy activities. Students in the business-as-usual comparison group received no tutoring as part of the study.
The study did not indicate any support or training offered to the providers of the intervention.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube