Bottge, B. A., Ma, X., Gassaway, L., Toland, M.D., Butler, M., & Cho, S. (2014). Exceptional Children, 80(4), 423-437.
Reviewed: March 2021
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Problem Solving Test |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.52 |
7.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Problem-Solving and Data Interpretation subtest |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.84 |
11.47 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Problem Solving Test: Measurement and data subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.78 |
4.87 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Problem Solving Test - Geometry - Graphing |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.55 |
4.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fractions Computation Test |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.36 |
4.74 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Computation subtest |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.62 |
10.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Addition overall subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.44 |
3.01 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Addition simple fractions subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.24 |
2.65 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: No rewrite subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.28 |
1.78 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Unlike denominator subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.52 |
1.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Addition mixed numbers subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.20 |
0.36 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Rewrite subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.07 |
2.96 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Subtraction overall subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.92 |
1.74 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fractions Computation Test: Like denominator subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.84 |
3.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Computation subtest, Whole numbers/decimals subtraction subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.32 |
1.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Computation subtest, Whole numbers/decimals multiplication subscale |
Enhanced Anchored Instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.90 |
1.38 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 16% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 4% | |
| White | 79% |
| Hispanic | 2% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 98% |
The study was conducted in 32 schools in a large metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Instruction in both study conditions (intervention and comparison) took place in special education resource rooms.
Of the students in the full analytic sample: 67 percent were male and 33 percent were female; 79 percent were Caucasian, 16 percent were African American, 1 percent were Native American, 1 percent were multiracial, and 3 percent were an unspecified race; 2 percent identified as Hispanic; 38 percent had a mild mental disability, 15 percent had a specific learning disability, 8 percent had autism, 6 percent had an emotional/behavioral disability, and 34 percent had another health impairment; and 74 percent were eligible for subsidized lunch.The majority of the students were in grades 7 and 8, and all were identified as having disabilities in mathematics.
Participating classrooms in intervention schools implemented the enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) curriculum, an instructional method developed for improving the computation and problem solving skills of middle school students with disabilities in math. The intervention classrooms implemented EAI for 94.1 instructional days, on average. Class sessions lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, though some classes met for 90 minutes. The intervention involved interactive lessons with computers, anchored problems displayed through video, and applied projects that were hands on, using a mix of explicit instruction and problem solving activities. The intervention consisted of five units. The first unit, Fractions at Work, was a series of computer modules that helped build competence with rational numbers. The second unit, Fraction of the Cost, was a computer-based exercise where students managed available funds and materials in order to build a skateboard ramp. The third unit was a hovercraft project, a hands on activity where students designed and built rollover cages for a hovercraft. The fourth unit, Kim's Komet, was a video episode that required students to use time and distance to calculate speed. The fifth unit was a grand pentathlon during which students competed in a pentathlon of events and graphed times and distances from the event results and used them to calculate speed.
In comparison classrooms, teachers followed their school's normal math curricula, which were aligned with the Combined Curriculum Document of their state's Department of Education. The comparison condition lasted an average of 93.7 instructional days. Most class sessions were between 45 and 60 minutes in length, though some classes met for 90 minutes.
Teachers attended a two-day summer workshop led by a middle school math teacher with multiple years of experience using EAI. During this workshop, teachers worked in groups to complete the tasks that they would be assigning to their students and discussed issues related to the lessons and use of technology. The workshop was videotaped and placed on a computer server so that teachers could review it during the school year. The intervention materials also included daily lesson plans for teachers.
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