Study: 88222

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: February 2020

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

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.

Findings

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Wide Range Achievement Test-III, arithmetic subtest	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Combined verbal + visual strategies intervention group vs. control group contrast; 33 students	1.46	0.88	No	--

Whole Numbers Word Problems/Problem Solving outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Comprehensive Mathematical Abilities Test (CMAT) - Story Problem Subtest	Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Combined verbal + visual strategies intervention group vs. control group contrast; 33 students	0.26	0.16	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 50%
Male: 50%
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
West

Race
Asian		5%
Black		9%
Other or unknown		29%
White		57%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		20%
Not Hispanic or Latino		80%

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted in 22 third-grade classrooms in two charter schools within a Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) district in the southwestern United States. These schools enroll a large number of students with learning disabilities (20% of students have special needs).

Study sample

The authors did not provide the demographic characteristics for the subgroup of students with math difficulties, which is the focus of this SRG. Based on the total study sample (N=147), about half (56.6%) of students were white, 20.4% were Hispanic, 8.8% were Black, 5.4% were Asian, and 8.9% were mixed race or other. About half (50.3%) of the study participants were female

Intervention Group

For the contrast reviewed here, the intervention group is the verbal + visual intervention group. Each study group received 20 30-minute scripted lessons, administered 3 times a week over 8 weeks. Trained tutors delivered lessons to small groups of 4-5 children. The tutors were doctoral or masters-level graduate students. Students received a booklet at the beginning of each lesson to record their answers. Each lesson within the booklet consisted of 4 phases: (1) warm-up, (2) strategy instruction, (3) guided practice, and (4) independent practice. During the warm-up stage (3-5 minutes), students were asked to solve simple problems (such as 9+2=x or x-5=1) and a set of puzzles based on problems using geometric shapes. During the strategy instruction phase (5 minutes), children were instructed or reviewed rules for solving problems (e.g., “to find the whole, you need to add the parts”). In the verbal + visual condition, children were instructed to use 6 verbal strategy steps (find and underline the question, circle the numbers, put a square around the key word, cross out not needed information, decide on what needs to be done, and solve it) and 2 types of diagrams (parts making up a whole and comparison of quantities). During guided practice (10 minutes), children worked on three practice word problems with tutors provided feedback. In the independent practice phase (10 minutes), students worked independently (without feedback) to solve three additional word problems. Students’ progress was assessed at the end of each session.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition in this contrast is the control group. Students in the control condition did not receive any supplemental instruction and received business as usual math instruction using the enVisionMATH Learning Curriculum.

Support for implementation

Intervention conditions were administered by trained tutors. Intervention fidelity was assessed by two independent observers who observed 6 randomly selected lessons for each tutor.

Additional Sources

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

Swanson, H. Lee; Lussier, Catherine M.; Orosco, Michael J. (2015). Cognitive Strategies, Working Memory, and Growth in Word Problem Solving in Children with Math Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, v48 n4 p339-358.
Swanson, H. Lee; Lussier, Catherine M.; Orosco, Michael J. (2015). Cognitive Strategies, Working Memory, and Growth in Word Problem Solving in Children with Math Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, v48 n4 p339-358.

Does Cognitive Strategy Training on Word Problems Compensate for Working Memory Capacity in Children with Math Difficulties? [Word problem instruction - verbal plus visual strategies condition vs. control]