Study: 74207

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: November 2019

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)

Using:

Rating:

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

Whole Numbers Word Problems/Problem Solving outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Math problem solving - immediate, near, & far transfer	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	3 Weeks	Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention); 243 students	33.87	19.52	Yes	33
Show Supplemental Findings
Math problem solving - immediate transfer	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	3 Weeks	Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention); 243 students	58.64	33.42	Yes	34
Math problem solving - near transfer	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	3 Weeks	Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention); 243 students	28.87	15.06	Yes	32
Math problem solving - far transfer	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	3 Weeks	Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention) vs. no Tier 2 SBI tutoring (with or without Tier 1 classroom intervention); 243 students	14.10	10.07	Yes	12

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.

2% English language learners
Female: 46%
Male: 54%
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
South

Race
Black		64%
Other or unknown		8%
White		28%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		7%
Not Hispanic or Latino		93%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in Grade 3 classrooms across four academic years in a metropolitan school district of the Southeast United States. SBI classroom instruction was implemented at the classroom level, and SBI tutoring was implemented in small groups.

Study sample

Of the 243 AR students in this contrast, 46 percent were female, 75 percent were eligible for subsidized lunch, 64 percent were African American, 28 percent were European America, and nine percent identified as other. Also, seven percent were Hispanic, two percent were English language learners and 12 percent were in special education. All students in this contrast were at-risk for mathematics difficulties.

Intervention Group

The intervention in this contrast (Tier 2 SBI tutoring) included instruction in small groups of 2 to 4 students. Three 20-30 minute tutoring sessions were conducted each week (totaling roughly 940 minutes across all session). The intervention took place after the general math problem solving unit was taught in the regular classroom. The content in the Tier 2 intervention mirrored the content in the Tier 1 classroom, but the Tier 2 intervention was more targeted on the most difficult concepts, used more manipulatives, included more opportunities for scaffolding to support student learning, and taught students self-regulation strategies. The sessions had four 3-week units, with each unit addressing a specific problem type (shopping list, buying bag, half, and pictograph). Each unit began with 5 sessions of instruction that covered the underlying concepts and structural features of the problem type and used concrete objects. The students and instructor would explain together why and how they used each step in a solution strategy. Over time the students worked on problems independently. In sessions 6-9, the problems now varied in cover story and had transfer features (different question or irrelevant information). Self-regulation strategies were included in the intervention during some of the cohorts but not all. Research assistants served as the tutors.

Comparison Group

Students in the control group for this contrast did not receive SBI Tier 2 tutoring. Some of them did receive SBI Tier 1 classroom instruction (but some did not).

Support for implementation

All research assistants (RAs) received a one day training session that provided with instructions, demonstrations, and scripted materials to study. RAs then practiced in pairs before conducting one lesson for a project coordinator who graded the delivery of the instruction. RAs were also given a three-hour training before the start of each unit, and all sessions were audiotaped from which RAs received corrective feedback.

Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools

Review Details
Sample Characteristics