Setting
This study took place in 28 general education classrooms across nine elementary schools in a large urban school district in the midwestern United States.
Study sample
This study examined participants who were third-grader students receiving mathematics instruction in general education classrooms and considered in need of supplemental mathematics support. Those students who needed mathematics support had scored at or below the 40th percentile on the mathematics subtest and a demonstrated reading score of at least a beginning second-grade level (or one grade level behind). The student demographic descriptions indicated 46% and 49% male, respective to the control and intervention groups. Additionally, the student sample population had a 39% to 38% eligibility for free/reduced lunch, 17% English language learner status, and 8% and 5% special education status, respective to the control and intervention groups.
Intervention Group
Participating students in both conditions first received the core mathematics program of their respective classrooms. Tutoring for the students in the intervention and comparison conditions followed the core mathematics instruction. Tutoring for both conditions was administered in small groups at various locations in the participating students' schools (e.g., library, cafeteria, etc.). In the tutoring sessions of the intervention group, students received 30 minutes of supplemental mathematics instruction using schema-based instruction (SBI) five times a week for 12 weeks. The SBI curriculum was designed to provide intensive instruction on word problem solving instruction. More specifically, the SBI curriculum focused on enhancing students’ reasoning skills within the context of solving one-step and two-step word problems involving Change, Group, and Compare problem types. (pp. 262, 263)
Comparison Group
Participating students in both conditions first received the core mathematics program of their respective classrooms. Tutoring for the students in the intervention and comparison conditions followed the core mathematics instruction. Tutoring for both conditions was administered in small groups at various locations in the participating students' schools (e.g., library, cafeteria, etc.). In the tutoring sessions of the comparison group, students received 30 minutes of supplemental mathematics instruction using a comparison tutoring program five times a week for 12 weeks. The comparison tutoring programs were developed by the study authors and classroom teachers. Specifically, the study authors approached teachers in the early fall of the school year to have them select the number and operations topics of their curricula for which they believed students struggling in mathematics needed additional instruction. These including place value, whole number addition and subtraction computation strategies, and word problem solving. (pp. 262, 263)
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation, tutors in both conditions received an introductory one-day training that focused on an overview of students with MD, behavior management techniques, and principles of effective instruction. Comparison group tutors also received an additional one-day training that included an explanation of the content, demonstrations of instructional strategies, and guidance using the mathematical tools and materials in the district-adopted third-grade mathematics program. SBI tutors received two days of additional training that included an explanation and review of SBI curriculum and materials. This training focused on explicit, systematic instruction, and guidance to implement critical instructional procedures. In addition, both SBI and comparison group tutors received ongoing support from project staff via site visits, monthly meetings, and email communications. (pp. 261, 262)