Evaluation of a Math Intervention Program Implemented with Community Support
Parker, David C.; Nelson, Peter M.; Zaslofsky, Anne F.; Kanive, Rebecca; Foegen, Anne; Kaiser, Patrick; Heisted, David (2019). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v12 n3 p391-412 2019. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229044
-
examining489Students, grades4-8
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- Grant Competition (findings for Math intervention delivered with community-based resources - Parker et al. (2019))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math Assessment |
Math intervention delivered with community-based resources - Parker et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
696.25 |
679.84 |
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.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
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
Minnesota
-
Race Asian 20% Black 28% Native American 6% Other or unknown 10% Pacific Islander 0% Two or more races 1% White 35% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Not Hispanic or Latino 90% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 61% No FRPL 39%
Study Details
Setting
Thirteen schools from rural and urban settings in Minnesota participated in the study. Students were in math classes in grades 4 through 8.
Study sample
School-level eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch was 61 percent. Less than half (48%) of the student sample was male. Ethnic composition mirrored the demographics of the region, with 35 percent White, 28 percent Black, and 20 percent Asian.
Intervention Group
This is a math intervention program delivered with community-based resources via AmeriCorps. Pairs of students received 90 minutes of math support each week (either in two 45-minute sessions or three 30-minute sessions). The intervention took place within or near students' classrooms. Trained interventionists delivered evidence-based support on whole and rational numbers using scripted protocols that applied the concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) strategy, the cover-copy-compare (CCC) strategy, and cognitive strategy instruction (CSI). Interventionists continued on to new topics after students successfully completed mastery checks. After they covered a subskill, students completed a formative assessment and, if successful, moved on to the next skill; if not successful, they were provided remedial instruction and then tested again.
Comparison Group
The comparison group was a waitlist control group, conducting business as usual. Teachers were instructed to teach the scope and sequence as they ordinarily would. Students in the control group might or might not have received additional instruction based on the teacher's best judgment, as usual. However, none of the control group students were exposed to the intervention materials.
Support for implementation
The research team provided 4 days of training for the volunteers who implemented the tutoring program. Two 2-hour refreshers were also offered. Additionally, one staff member in each school received training in the intervention. School staff was asked to attend to the logistics of the program implementation, such as scheduling students and tutors and reserving meeting space.
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).