Pivoting Training and Coaching for an Early Numeracy Intervention during COVID-19
David Fainstein; Ben Clarke; Derek Kosty; Lauren Cycyk; Jessica Turtura; Christian T. Doabler (2024). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED665231
-
examining54Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for ROOTS)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS) |
ROOTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
119.10 |
96.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
ROOTS Assessment of Early Numeracy Skills (RAENS) |
ROOTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.70 |
27.50 |
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.
-
54% English language learners -
Female: 65%
Male: 33%
Other or unknown: 2% -
- 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
West
-
Race Native American 4% Other or unknown 6% Two or more races 2% White 89% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Other or unknown 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 13% No FRPL 85% Other or unknown 2%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted during the 2020–2021 school year at two primary schools from different districts located in the Northwest region of the United States. The intervention was implemented in kindergarten classrooms as a supplement to core math instruction.
Study sample
A total of 54 students participated in the study, with 28 in the intervention and 26 in the comparison condition. Participating students were identified as at risk for mathematics learning disabilities through the Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS) measure; students performed at the "strategic" or "intensive" range of the ASPENS middle-of-year composite score. The sample included 35 females and 18 males (1 unknown). Of the 54 students, 48 identified as White, two as Indigenous/Native American, and one as multi-racial (three unknown/not specified). Furthermore, 29 students were identified as having special education eligibility and seven as free-reduced price lunch eligible.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received the ROOTS program, which consists of 50 20-min lessons on whole-number understanding. Lessons were delivered in person and in small groups. Interventionists supplemented core math instruction by adding a ROOTS lesson to the core math lesson of the day. ROOTS lessons generally include a warm-up routine, a review of past content, math instruction, and opportunities for practice. Interventionists also log instructional progress or conduct assessments to track student progress.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction (i.e., regular math classroom instruction). Core instruction was typically 60 min per day, four to five days per week; one teacher provided 45 min of core math instruction each day. Core instruction included a range of math activities, and all teachers provided whole class instruction on counting, cardinality, and operations into daily calendar time. Teachers also incorporated online games for math practice. Comparison students did not receive any alternative intervention program during the study.
Support for implementation
Interventionists attended two synchronous remote PD trainings on the ROOTS curriculum. The remote trainings were parallel to previous in-person ROOTS trainings, which include two four-hour sessions. All interventionists also received ongoing remote coaching (3–5 sessions). Coaching sessions focused on improving implementation fidelity via post-observation feedback. Coaches also demonstrated primary activities during sessions. For coaching observations, coaches noted any deviations from the scripted lesson and applied a standardized rating scale for explicit instruction to generate 1-3 key points for feedback to the interventionist.
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).