Watt, Sarah J.; Therrien, William J. (2016). Preventing School Failure, v60 n4 p311-319. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1110067
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Basic Skills Algebra curriculum-based measure |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.80 |
6.53 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 34% | |
| Other or unknown | 22% | |
| White | 44% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
All students in the study attended one of two elementary schools. Across the two schools, there were four classrooms. No information is provided about the schools (e.g., whether they were public, private, charter, etc.) or their location.
Fifty-six percent of the sample qualified for free or reduced price lunch. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the sample was 34% African American, 44% white, 19% Hispanic, and 3% Middle Eastern. Forty percent of the sample was female and 60% of the sample was male. 59% of the sample was receiving tier 2 supplemental support, 26% was receiving tier 3 comprehensive support, and 15% of the sample had an IEP.
Prior to the class receiving instruction on fractions, students in the intervention group participated in 10 30-minute sessions (five per week). These sessions took place during a time period during the school day when all students worked in small groups or participated in teacher-led groups. During the 10 sessions, preteaching was provided for three skills: comparing the size of two fractions using symbols (<, =, or >), reducing fractions to their simplest forms, and addition and subtraction with fractions that had the same denominator, as well as those with different denominators. In the instruction period, the first session provided introductory material, including introducing students to new vocabulary and showing them how to use the manipulatives that would be used in later sessions. This was followed by 3 sessions of instruction for each of the three skills. The three sessions progressed through the CRA (concrete-representational-abstract) teaching sequence. During the first session (concrete) for each skill, instruction consisted of modeling and practice with manipulatives. During the second session (representational), students worked with pictorial representations of the same ideas they had previously worked on with concrete manipulatives. Finally, during the third (abstract) section, students worked on the same skill area, this time using numbers and symbols. On this day, they also completed practice worksheets. If teachers did not feel students were ready to move onto the next step in the sequence (i.e., from concrete to representational or from representational to abstract), they would provide additional instruction to students at their level.
Students who were assigned to the control condition participated in a supplemental reading group.
Both of the teachers participated in training on how to administer the intervention. Training was provided through webinars. Teachers also received materials to read about the strategies they would be teaching. In total, teachers received 4 hours of training.
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