Study: 87215

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: February 2020

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

Algebra and Algebraic Reasoning outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Number Sentences	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Math Flash versus Control; 91 students	-0.05	-0.24	No	--
Find X	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Math Flash versus Control; 91 students	0.10	-0.15	No	--

Whole Numbers Computation outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Number Combinations Factor Score	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Math Flash versus Control; 91 students	0.32	-0.36	Yes	25
Procedural Calculations Factor Score	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Math Flash versus Control; 91 students	0.18	-0.26	Yes	17

Whole Numbers Word Problems/Problem Solving outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Vanderbilt Story Problems	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	MathFlash versus Control; 91 students	-0.06	-0.25	No	--
KeyMath-Revised Problem Solving	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Math Flash versus Control; 91 students	0.07	-0.14	No	--

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.

14% English language learners
Female: 43%
Male: 57%
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
Tennessee, Texas

Race
Black		66%
Other or unknown		24%
White		10%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		22%
Not Hispanic or Latino		78%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in two, large, urban school districts, one in Houston, Texas and the other in Nashville, Tennessee. Participants were drawn from 63 classrooms across 18 schools: 7 schools and 23 classrooms in Houston and 11 schools and 40 classrooms in Nashville.

Study sample

Students in the Math Flash intervention condition had the following characteristics: mean age of 9.0 years, 52% female, 82% eligible for subsidized lunch, 18% classified as special education, 30% had been retained a grade, 14% classified as English learners, 61% African American, 11% Caucasian, 25% Hispanic, and 3% other. Students in the control condition had the following characteristics: mean age of 8.86 years, 34% female, 77% eligible for subsidized lunch, 17% classified as special education, 23% had been retained a grade, 15% classified as English learners, 70% African American, 9% Caucasian, 19% Hispanic, and 2% other.

Intervention Group

The Number Combination tutoring, Math Flash, was the intervention. It was provided for 16 weeks, 3 sessions per week and included 48 lessons. Each lesson lasts for 20-30 minutes. Math Flash addresses the 200 number combinations with addends and subtrahends from 0-9. Number combinations are introduced in a deliberate order and continued distributed and cumulative review occurs of number combinations already addressed. Manipulatives and the number line are used. Students are taught strategies for solving number combinations. They can either know it, or use a counting up strategy. Five activities are included in the lesson: flash card warm up, conceptual and strategic instruction, lesson-specific flash card practice, computerized practice, and paper-pencil cumulative review. A motivation component is included.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison condition participated in business-as-usual math instruction. In Nashville, teachers followed the Houghton Mifflin Math curriculum (Greenes et al., 2005). In Houston, teacher selected their own math curriculum but were guided by Houston's Horizontal Alignment Planning Guide.

Support for implementation

Tutors are provided scripts to be studied before tutoring, not read aloud to students during tutoring. Tutors were trained in a one-day session of instruction which included practicing implementation. Tutors then practiced alone, with a partner, and then provided tutoring to their supervisor before implementation. Ongoing meetings occurred every 2-3 weeks throughout the intervention period to address problems as they arise and to update any tutoring procedures.

Remediating Number Combination and Word Problem Deficits among Students with Mathematics Difficulties: A Randomized Control Trial [Tutoring in automatic retrieval vs. control]