Study: 87217

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 with reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.

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

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Math Concepts factor score	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	1 Week	Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast; 66 students	0.08	-0.08	No	--

Whole Numbers Computation outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Procedural Computation factor score	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	1 Week	Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast; 66 students	-0.03	-0.15	No	--
Fact Retrieval factor score	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	1 Week	Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast; 66 students	-0.16	-0.21	No	--

Whole Numbers Magnitude Understanding/Relative Magnitude Understanding outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Computational Estimation	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	1 Week	Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast; 66 students	0.24	-0.51	Yes	29

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
Story Problems factor score	Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable)	1 Week	Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring vs. word-identification (reading) tutoring contrast; 66 students	0.03	-0.08	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.

12% English language learners
Female: 56%
Male: 44%
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		58%
Other or unknown		25%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		21%
Not Hispanic or Latino		79%

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted across 18 schools, with 56 third-grade classrooms in Nashville and 24 third-grade classrooms in Houston.

Study sample

For this contrast, three out of four students (74 percent) were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch, 17 percent were special education, and 12 percent were English learners. Slightly more than half (56 percent) were female.

Intervention Group

For this contrast, the intervention condition was Fact Retrieval and Procedural Estimation (Combined) tutoring. This condition comprised four activities: computer-assisted instruction using Math Flash (part of the Fact retrieval skill intervention: 7.5 minutes), computer-assisted instruction using Magic Math (part of the Procedural/estimation skill intervention: 5-10 minutes), the flash card practice incorporated in the procedural/estimation skill intervention with corrective feedback (4 minutes), and cumulative review with corrective feedback (4 minutes). The Math Flash portion of the curriculum was exactly the same as the intervention group. The Magic Math computer-assisted instruction comprised three segments: i) addressing conceptual underpinnings using pictorial representations of ones and tens; ii) teaching procedural steps of two-digit addition and subtraction, relying on the same addition or subtraction problems worked in the first segment; and iii) estimation for which the student worked on a double-digit addition problem that differed from the problems used in segments 1 and 2. Flash cards practice in this condition included three types of flash card activities: i) two-digit addition or subtraction problems with or without regrouping to which the student responded by stating whether to add or subtract and then whether to regroup or not regroup; ii) cards showing a two-digit addition problem, with or without regrouping for which the student stated whether the sum of the ones column was closest to 0, 10, or 20; and iii) the same set of cards for which the student had to state the estimated answer to each two-digit addition problem. Cumulative review was a paper-pencil activity, in which students were asked to complete 15 math problems on paper. The tutors then corrected the math problems aloud while the student observed. As with the other three groups in the study, students received 3 sessions per week for 15 weeks for a total of 45 sessions.

Comparison Group

For this contrast, the comparison condition was word-identification (reading) tutoring, which comprised two activities: computer-assisted instruction (7 minutes), and repeated reading (7 minutes with corrective feedback). The computer-assisted instruction used Reading Flash in which words individually “flashed” on the computer screen for 1.3 seconds, after which the student was tasked to type in the word correctly spelled. Repeated reading involved students reading a short story aloud for two minutes while tutors counted the number of words read aloud correctly. Students repeated the task two more times in an attempt to improve the number of words read aloud correctly within the time allotted. As with the other three groups in the study, students received 3 sessions per week for 15 weeks for a total of 45 sessions.

Support for implementation

Tutors were trained over two full days. During the weeks following training, tutors studied the tutoring scripts and practiced implementing the procedures alone and with each other. Tutors then each conducted a session in each study condition with a project coordinator who provided corrective feedback. Research assistants met with project coordinators every two to three weeks to address problems and questions.

Remediating Computational Deficits at Third Grade: A Randomized Field Trial [Fact retrieval with procedural computation and computational estimation tutoring vs. irrelevant control (word-identification skill tutoring)]