Dyson, Nancy; Jordan, Nancy C.; Beliakoff, Amber; Hassinger-Das, Brenna (2015). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, v46 n3 p331-370. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1088271
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number Sense Screener |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample. Number fact practice vs. Control;
|
31.64 |
25.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number Sense Screener |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample. Number fact practice vs. Control;
|
33.78 |
29.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arithmetic Fluency task (Dyson et al., 2015) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample. Number fact practice vs. Control;
|
7.52 |
4.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Standard Test Book Form A: Calculation subtest |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample. Number fact practice vs. Control;
|
4.96 |
3.31 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Arithmetic Fluency task (Dyson et al., 2015) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample. Number fact practice vs. Control;
|
8.58 |
6.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Standard Test Book Form A: Calculation subtest |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample. Number fact practice vs. Control;
|
6.45 |
5.10 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 26% | |
| Other or unknown | 55% | |
| White | 20% |
| Hispanic | 52% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 48% |
The analytic sample was 51% female. About 26% of students were African American; 52% were Hispanic, and 20% Caucasian. Approximately 41% were identified as English learner students because they were enrolled in bilingual classrooms. Roughly 84% of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch. On average, children in the number fact practice group were 67 months old and children in the control group were 64 months old.
The Number-Fact Practice condition involved 24 30-minutes lessons over an 8 week period. The intervention was delivered to small groups of students (n = 4). Students participated in instruction that aimed to improve their number-sense skills. Instruction was provided in four areas: number, number relations, and number operations. Students received 25 minutes of a number sense intervention. The last 5 minutes of instruction for the Number-Fact Practice condition practiced basic number fact fluency.
In three of the four schools that had set aside time for intervention, children in the control condition participated in their school’s typical mathematics intervention. In the fourth school, control students participated in non-academic instruction during the time when the intervention we being delivered.
Interventionists were provided with scripted lessons. No other support was reported.
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