Bryant, Brian R.; Bryant, Diane Pedrotty; Roberts, Greg; Fall, Anna-Maria (2016). International Journal for Research in Learning Disabilities, v3 n1 p29-45. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1155717
Reviewed: March 2020
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number Identification subtest of the Texas Early Mathematics Inventory-Progress Monitoring (TEMI-PM) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.56 |
9.79 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Number Sequences subtest of the Texas Early Mathematics Inventory-Progress Monitoring (TEMI-PM) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.84 |
9.38 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Early Mathematics Inventory-Progress Monitoring (TEMI-PM) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.07 |
64.10 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 14% | |
| Other or unknown | 4% | |
| White | 37% |
| Hispanic | 45% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 55% |
The study took place in 32 general education kindergarten classrooms (16 intervention and 16 control classrooms) in 16 schools in urban Texas school districts.
All students in the study were identified as having difficulties in mathematics. The sample contained slightly more males than females (56 versus 42 percent, respectively). Almost half (45 percent) were Hispanic, 37 were white, and 14 percent were black. The majority (63 percent) received free or reduced price lunch, and 21 percent were limited English proficient or English language learners.
The intervention was conducted by the classroom teachers during small group instruction time (groups of 3-4 students). The intervention lasted 25-28 minutes per day, 4 days a week, for 23 weeks. This was a supplemental intervention that was provided in addition to normal mathematics classroom time. The intervention covered early numeracy concepts and skills, such as identifying and writing numerals, counting, ordering and comparing quantities, making groups, and solving simple change problems. The intervention included visual representations to support learning of concepts, basic mathematic operations, and proprieties like the commutative or associate properties. For instance, students used manipulatives (like connecting cubes, base-10 materials), pictorial representations (like 10 frames, dot configurations, place-value models), and symbolic representations. The intervention also included an emphasis on vocabulary development, and teachers were provided a glossary of key terms to teach. Throughout the lessons, teachers used explicit instruction techniques, like modeling, guided practice, monitoring student progress during independent practice, correcting errors, providing examples, reviewing concepts, and allowing students time to practice with visual representations. At the end of each lesson, the teacher monitored student progress by having students answer four questions on the content of that lesson. Students that answered 3 of 4 questions correctly were considered to have met the objectives of the lesson.
The comparison condition was conducted by classroom teachers. The exact content and strategies covered in each classroom differed by school, but all classrooms focused on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills content around numbers and operations, such as counting forward and backward from 0 to 20, reading and writing numbers from 0 to 20, recognizing quantities. Most of the comparison group teachers did provide additional supportive instruction, sometimes with explicit instruction or inquiry-based instruction. However, the type of instruction varied by teacher. Most teachers did not use progress monitoring to assess student learning.
All intervention group teachers and a school liaison (guidance counselor, lead teacher, etc.) from each school attended a one-day training on the lessons and materials, which included a video example of implementation and time to practice implementation with feedback from the trainers. The teachers also had the materials for implementation, such as student booklets. The training also covered implementation of the data collection instruments as the teachers had to administer them to their students. During implementation, the study team provided the intervention group teachers with ongoing support including webcasts, newsletters. A member of the study team visited the teachers twice during the school year and provided coaching and support as needed. The school liaisons subsequently trained the control group teachers on how to administer the tests.
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