Siegler, Robert S.; Ramani, Geetha B. (2008). Developmental Science, v11 n5 p655-661. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ849743
Reviewed: January 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of correctly ordered numbers |
Number board games vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample (number based board game vs. color based board game);
|
0.80 |
0.62 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number line Estimation-Percent Absolute Error |
Number board games vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample (number based board game vs. color based board game);
|
0.37 |
0.28 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% | |
| White | 42% |
The study recruited students from a Head Start program and three childcare centers that served low-income urban families in Pennsylvania. These students are the sample for Experiment 2, the focus of this review.
The mean age of the children in the intervention group was 4.6 years, and the mean age of the children in the comparison group was 4.7 years. Overall, 56 percent of the sample was female; 58 percent were Black and 42 percent were White. The families of 96 percent of the participating children were classified as low-income, and they received government subsidies for childcare expenses.
Children met with an experimenter for four 15-minute sessions over a two-week period. Sessions were conducted one-on-one between the experimenter and child. The experimenter explained the rules of the game to the child and then they played the game for the rest of the session. Each game lasted between 2 and 4 minutes. It was estimated that each child played approximately 30 games over the course of the sessions. In the intervention condition, the children played a simple game based on numbers and counting. The game board had 10 squares labeled with the numbers 1 through 10. The experimenter and child alternated using a spinner that had one half labeled 1 and one half labeled 2. If the spinner landed on the 1 side, the child would move one square forward on the board; if the spinner landed on the 2 side, the child would move two squares forward. The child stated the numbers as they moved through the board. If they started on the square labeled 3, and their spinner landed on 2, they would move forward two squares and say 4 and 5 as they moved. If the child miscounted, the experimenter would correct them.
The children in the comparison condition played the same game as the intervention group, except that the comparison group's game used colors, rather than numbers. Specifically, the game board for the comparison group included 10 squares with different colors in the squares. The experimenter and child alternated using a spinner that had colors matching the colors of the game board squares. The child would move forward to the corresponding colored squared based on the color the spinner landed on. The child would state the color of the squares they moved through on the board. If the child misidentified the color, the experimenter would correct them. The duration of sessions was the same for the comparison and intervention groups and each child in the comparison group also received the intervention one-on-one with the experimenter.
A female graduate student led the games for children in both the intervention and comparison groups.
Reviewed: November 2013
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% | |
| White | 42% |
Reviewed: September 2010
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% | |
| White | 42% |
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
Teaching Math to Young Children Practice Guide