Examining the Impact of a First Grade Whole Number Intervention by Group Size [Fusion 2:1 vs. Fusion 5:1]
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Sutherland, Marah; Kosty, Derek; Turtura, Jessica; Smolkowski, Keith (2022). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED626858
-
examining322Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Fusion 2:1)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
easyCBM |
Fusion 2:1 vs. Fusion 5:1 |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.40 |
24.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
easyCBM |
Fusion 2:1 vs. Fusion 5:1 |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
22.00 |
20.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Mathematical Ability (TEMA-3) |
Fusion 2:1 vs. Fusion 5:1 |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
42.90 |
41.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS) |
Fusion 2:1 vs. Fusion 5:1 |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
43.70 |
42.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
ProFusion (Clarke et al., 2022) |
Fusion 2:1 vs. Fusion 5:1 |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
46.20 |
43.50 |
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.
-
14% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
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
Oregon
-
Race Asian 3% Black 2% Native American 1% Other or unknown 21% Two or more races 8% White 65% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 21% Not Hispanic or Latino 79% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 53 first-grade classrooms from nine elementary schools in three school districts in Oregon. One school district was located in the urban area of Portland, and two districts were in suburban areas of western Oregon.
Study sample
The study included nine elementary schools with 36 teachers and 53 first-grade classrooms. A total of 460 students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: 92 were assigned to receive 2:1 Fusion, 230 were assigned to receive 5:1 Fusion, and 138 were assigned to the comparison group. In this review, the group receiving 2:1 Fusion is the intervention group and the group receiving 5:1 Fusion is the comparison group. The no-services comparison group is not included in this review. Among the full study sample of 460 students, approximately 54% were female, 14% were English learners, and 17% received special education services. Sixty-five percent were White, 3% were Asian, 2% were Black, 1% were Native American, 8% were of multiple races, and 21% did not report race. Twenty-one percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
Fusion is a 60-lesson, Tier 2 first-grade mathematics intervention focused on whole number understanding. The Fusion 2:1 intervention was delivered in a small-group format (two students per interventionist), with lessons lasting for 30 minutes. The study administered the program five days per week for 12 weeks. Fusion is a supplemental intervention, so instruction did not interfere or replace regular mathematics instruction. Instruction began in the early winter and ended in the spring. The intervention aims to build students’ proficiency of whole number knowledge, specifically in operations and algebraic thinking, and number and operations in base-10. Lessons 1 through 30 focus on building proficiency in modeling, writing, and sequencing two-digit numbers. Lessons 31 through 60 focus on problem solving and two-digit addition and subtraction problems and compare two-digit numbers.
Comparison Group
Students in the 5:1 Fusion comparison group received the same intervention as students in the intervention group, except in a small group format with five students per interventionist.
Support for implementation
All interventionists participated in two four-hour professional development workshops delivered by project staff. They also received, on average, two coaching visits from coaches, involving direct observations and feedback on instructional quality and fidelity.
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).