WWC review of this study

Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude-treatment interaction.

Fuchs, L., Schumacher, R., Sterba, S., Long, J., Namkung, J., Malone, A., Hamlett, C., Jordan, N., Gertsen, R., Siegler, R., & Changas, P. (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 1–14. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054465

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    164
     Students
    , grade
    4

Reviewed: December 2014

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Fraction Battery-Revised

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Fluency vs. comparsion;
164 students

17.53

8.16

Yes

 
 
43
 
More Outcomes

Fraction Battery-Revised

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Conceptual vs. comparison;
159 students

17.36

8.16

Yes

 
 
42
 

Fraction Number Line

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Conceptual vs. comparison;
159 students

-0.19

-0.27

Yes

 
 
39
 

Fraction Number Line

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Fluency vs. comparsion;
164 students

-0.20

-0.27

Yes

 
 
34
 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Fluency vs. comparsion;
164 students

14.45

12.07

Yes

 
 
24
 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Conceptual vs. comparison;
159 students

14.40

12.07

Yes

 
 
24
 

Fraction Battery-Revised

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Fluency vs. conceptual;
163 students

18.01

17.84

No

--

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Fluency vs. conceptual;
163 students

14.69

14.64

No

--

Fraction Number Line

Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH

Posttest

Fluency vs. conceptual;
163 students

-0.21

-0.21

No

--


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.


  • 11% English language learners

  • Female: 61%
    Male: 39%
  • Race
    Black
    59%
    Other or unknown
    3%
    White
    16%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    23%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    77%
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top