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: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arithmetic Combinations (Fuchs Hamlett & Powell 2003) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: Word problem solving (with and without language instruction) vs. control;
|
24.46 |
16.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
First grade word problems (Fuchs et al. 2009) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: Aggregated sample: Word problem solving (with & without language instruction) vs. control ;
|
8.62 |
3.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Word problem-language assessment |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: Word problem solving (with & without language instruction) vs. control;
|
14.20 |
13.41 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 36% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 57% |
| Hispanic | 36% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 64% |
The study comprises first-grade students at risk (AR) for mathematical difficulties from 186 classrooms of 21 elementary schools presumably in the United States. The exact location is not specified.
Within the analytic sample of the contrast covered in this SRG (Word problem solving (with & without language instruction) vs. control), 39 percent were male, 61 percent were female, 36 percent were Black, 57 percent were White, 7 percent were another race, 36 percent were Hispanic, 38 percent were English-learners, and 78 percent were considered economically disadvantaged. The sample excluded youth with scores below 80 on the Wechsler Abbreviated Intelligence Scale because the intervention was not intended for youth with intellectual disabilities. The sample also excluded those that mainly did not speak English.
For this review, the intervention condition was the combined word problem solving with language and without language intervention groups. Both the word problem solving with language and word problem solving without language groups shared the following four characteristics: i) each intervention comprised 45 30-minute sessions conducted one-on-one over 15 weeks outside the classroom in the student’s school; ii) instruction was explicit, designed to compensate for the domain-general cognitive and linguistic limitations associated with word problem difficulty; iii) the intervention includes a self-regulation system to mitigate attention, motivation, and self-regulation difficulties; and iv) each session comprises three segments: speeded practice on arithmetic problems (5 minutes); the lesson (20 minutes); and practice (5 minutes). 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 embedded language comprehension component of the word problem with language condition addresses word problem language relevant to the first-grade word problem schemas.
The comparison condition in this contrast is a business as usual control condition in which students received the typical mathematics instruction. The authors do not provide more details on what this condition received.
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