Ramani, Geetha B.; Siegler, Robert S. (2011). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, v32 n3 p146-159. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ922466
Reviewed: March 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Slope of Number Line Estimates |
Linear board game vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Linear Board Game versus Comparison;
|
0.50 |
0.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Arithmetic- absolute error |
Linear board game vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Linear Board Game versus Comparison;
|
1.30 |
1.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Linearity of Number Line Estimates |
Linear board game vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Linear Board Game versus Comparison;
|
39.00 |
29.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Numeral Identification |
Linear board game vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Linear Board Game vs Comparison;
|
8.50 |
7.90 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 24% | |
| White | 76% |
The study was conducted in six preschools serving middle- to upper-middle-class families. Three of the six preschools were affiliated with universities. The authors compared performance for the children in the university-affiliated and non-university affiliated preschools and found no differences.
Children ranged in age from three years and five months to four years and eight months. The sample was 61 percent female. The racial/ethnic composition of the sample was 76 percent White with the remaining 24 percent a combination of Asian, Hispanic, Biracial, or Unknown. The Hispanic classification was treated as a racial category
Children were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a linear board game condition, a circular board game condition, or a comparison condition that performed numerical activities. This review treated the contrasts between the linear board game and numerical activities conditions as main findings, and contrasts between the linear board game condition and the circular board game condition were treated as supplemental findings. In the linear board game condition children played a linear board game with an experimenter. The board game had ten colored squares with numbers appearing in sequence and increasing from left to right. The spinner had two values: one and two. The spinner would be spun, and the individual would count the number of spaces being moved. If the child did not count properly, the interventionist corrected, the child repeated. The child usually won. The child played the game approximately twenty times over four sessions during a three week period. Each session lasted fifteen to twenty minutes. Each round of the game lasted two to three minutes.
The numerical activities condition serves as the comparison group for the main findings in this review. Children in the numerical activities comparison condition were given three tasks in a repeating cycle, including number string counting (counting poker chips given a random number), numeral identification, and object counting. For this review, the circular board game condition was treated as a supplemental comparison group. Children in the circular board game condition played a similar game with the main difference being the shape of the board. The authors controlled for time spent performing experiment-related activities by pairing children in the numerical activities comparison group with those in the other two groups who were of similar age and who spent similar amounts of time meeting with the experimenter. The pairing variable was included in the statistical impact models.
The article states that the sessions for the two intervention conditions and the numerical activities condition were led by the first author and two research assistants. No other information is provided regarding how these experimenters were trained.
Reviewed: November 2015
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Everyday Mathematics®.
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.
| Other or unknown | 24% | |
| White | 76% |
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