Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Sterba, S. K., Craddock, C., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Geary, D. C., & Changas, P. (2019). Vanderbilt University.
Reviewed: April 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arithmetic Combinations (Fuchs Hamlett & Powell 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Word problem without language condition vs. Word Problem with language instruction contrast;
|
24.01 |
24.87 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word problem-language assessment |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Word problem without language condition vs. Word Problem with language instruction contrast;
|
13.07 |
15.55 |
Yes |
|
|
|
First grade word problems (Fuchs et al. 2009) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Word problem without language condition vs. Word Problem with language instruction contrast;
|
7.40 |
9.81 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 36% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 57% |
| Hispanic | 35% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 65% |
The study took place with students from 186 classrooms in 21 schools. The exact location is not specified.
Within the analytic sample of the comparison covered in this review (word problem without language condition vs. Word Problem with language instruction contrast), 39 percent were male, 61 percent were female, 36 percent were Black, 57 percent were White, 6 percent were another race, 35 percent were Hispanic, 38 percent were English-learners, and 79 percent were considered economically disadvantaged.
The intervention, word problem solving without language, involved 45 sessions, each 30-minutes long. The intervention was implemented one-on-one over 15 weeks, with instruction taking place outside of the normal classroom. The sessions began with 5 minutes of speeded practice, followed by 20 minutes of instruction, and 5 minutes for practice. The intervention had explicit instruction, meaning the instructors used simple, direct language, modeled effective strategies for solving problems (rather than having students come up with strategies on their own), scaffolded learning so that support from the instructor gradually faded over time and gave students opportunities for independent practice, and used cumulative review to measure student learning. The intervention also included self-regulation strategies related to using the proper volume when speaking, staying in seats, following directions, and making effort to answer the questions correctly. The word problem without language intervention, known as Pirate Math, is organized in five units: Unit 1 (lessons 1-9) addresses adding and subtracting concepts, addition and subtraction counting strategies, and solving for a missing number; Unit 2 (lessons 10-18) focuses on total problems (combining two or three quantities to make a total); Unit 3 (lessons 19-27) focuses on difference problems (comparing a larger and a smaller quantity to find the difference); Unit 4 (lessons 28-36) focuses on change problems (increasing or decreasing a start quantity to produce an end quantity; and Unit 5 (lessons 37-45) introduced a sorting game where students decide whether a problem is total, difference, or change.
The comparison condition in this review, word problem solving with language intervention group, had the same structure and frequency as the intervention condition. It also had explicit instruction and included a self-regulation system. The word problem with language condition differed from the word problem solving without language condition because it had additional language comprehension components throughout the instruction. For example, instructors give definitions for terms commonly found in combine problems (such as "in all") or compare problems ("more", "fewer", "than").
Across all intervention conditions, 54 full or part-time hired tutors implemented the intervention. Each worked with 5-6 students. Tutors participated in a two-day workshop introducing them to the intervention program and then were supported in the implementation of the program via weekly meetings during the 15 weeks of intervention.
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