Empowering Teachers with Low-Intensity Strategies to Support Instruction: Within-Activity Choices in Third-Grade Math with Null Effects
Ennis, Robin Parks; Lane, Kathleen Lynne; Oakes, Wendy Peia (2018). Remedial and Special Education, v39 n2 p77-94. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1173893
-
examining4Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Instructional choice - Ennis et al. (2018))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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.
-
50% English language learners -
Female: 25%
Male: 75% -
Suburban
-
- 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 25% Other or unknown 50% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 50% Not Hispanic or Latino 50% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
Students attended two elementary schools within a large, suburban public elementary school district in the Southeastern United States.
Study sample
The sample of four third-grade students is 75% male. Half of the students were English Learners, 50% were Hispanic, 25% were Black, and 25% were White. All four students were at-risk for behavioral challenges and academic underachievement, and Elle, José, and Phillip were participating in Tier 2 academic supports through a pre-referral intervention. Each student was taught by a different third-grade teacher.
Intervention Group
The intervention, instructional choice, was implemented during math class. It allows students to make choices related to classroom activities. The types of choices available included picking among several different activities, choosing the order to perform different classroom activities, and choosing the locations or materials used to complete a classroom activity. After the students make their choice, teachers offer them an opportunity to give feedback on the choice they selected. Due to a lack of time in the school year, maintenance was assessed for two students only (Carlo and José). Although 2- and 4-week follow-ups were planned, José’s maintenance checks were conducted at 4-week interval due to his teacher's unplanned leave following the final intervention phase. Results were not maintained at the 4-week follow-up. For Carlo, maintenance data at 2-week follow-up were slightly higher than in reintroduction; at 4-week follow-up they had returned to baseline levels.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Business as usual instruction was delivered during the baseline and withdrawal phases.
Support for implementation
Teachers completed a 30-minute standardized training module on implementing the instructional choice intervention, The training covered the topic of instructional choice, research that supported the use of the practice in the classroom, detailed guidance on how to perform instructional choice, information on the treatment integrity forms, and data collection procedures for the study. Teachers completed a 15-item quiz intended to check for understanding, which required a 90% correct response rate to complete the module. Teachers also completed treatment fidelity checklists during the baseline and intervention conditions.
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).