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 |
Number knowledge (Galaxy Math) vs. control group contrast;
|
23.58 |
16.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word problem-language assessment |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Number knowledge (Galaxy Math) vs. control group contrast;
|
13.73 |
13.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
First grade word problems (Fuchs et al. 2009) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Number knowledge (Galaxy Math) vs. control group contrast;
|
3.62 |
3.36 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 39% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 54% |
| Hispanic | 36% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 64% |
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 SRG (comparing number knowledge to control), 40 percent were male, 60 percent were female, 39 percent were Black, 54 percent were White, 7 percent were another race, 36 percent were Hispanic, 36 percent were English-learners, and 76 percent were considered economically disadvantaged.
For this contrast, the intervention condition was the number knowledge intervention group. This intervention comprised 45 30-minute sessions implemented by tutors, one-on-one over 15 weeks outside the classroom in the student’s school. Instruction was explicit, designed to compensate for the domain-general cognitive and linguistic limitations associated with word problem difficulty. The intervention also included a self-regulation system to mitigate attention, motivation, and self-regulation difficulties Each session had three segments: speeded practice on arithmetic problems (5 minutes); the lesson (20 minutes); and practice (5 minutes). The number knowledge intervention, known as Galaxy Math, is organized in six units: Unit 1 (lessons 1-4) addresses basic number knowledge; Unit 2 (lessons 5-6) focuses on adding and subtracting concepts and principles; Unit 3 (lessons 7-11) teaches counting strategies; Unit 4 (lessons 12-13) focuses on doubles concepts; Unit 5 (lessons 14-37) focuses on number sets 5 - 12; and Unit 6 (lessons 38-45) focuses on writing, counting and reading numbers 0-99, and double-digit adding and subtracting. During the lesson portion of each session, the tutor used number lines and manipulatives to represent mathematical ideas.
For this review, the comparison group is the control group, which received business as usual instruction. The authors do not provide more details on what this condition received.
Across all intervention conditions, 54 full or part-time hired tutors served as tutors. Each worked with 5-6 students. Tutors participated in a 2-day workshop introducing them to the intervention program and then supported in the implementation of the program via weekly meeting 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