Braithwaite, David W.; Siegler, Robert S. (2021). Journal of Educational Psychology v113 n3 p556-571. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED612394
Reviewed: October 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed number line estimation of unequal denominator fraction sums |
Practice estimating individual fractions and fraction sums—Braithwaite et al., 2021 vs. Practice estimating individual fractions |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.30 |
13.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed number line estimation of equal-denominator fraction sums |
Practice estimating individual fractions and fraction sums—Braithwaite et al., 2021 vs. Practice estimating individual fractions |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.90 |
9.90 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 95% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 39% | |
| No FRPL | 61% |
The study took place in one middle school in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area.
A total of 63 students in grades 4 and 5 were included in the study. Approximately 38% of the students were male and 39% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Ninety-five percent were White, 2% were Black, and 3% were another race.
The intervention is a computer program intended to provide students with practice estimating the magnitude of fractions and fraction sums. Researchers implemented the intervention one-on-one with individual students over two sessions. In session one, a researcher first gave the student a tutorial on using fraction strips to visually represent unit fractions (that is, fractions with a numerator of one, ranging from 1/2 to 1/10) and positioning the fractions strips on a number line that ranged from zero to one. The student then played a computer game in which each trial involved attempting to capture a monster by correctly clicking the point on a 0–1 number line that corresponded to the size of a target fraction. If the point clicked by the student was sufficiently close to the correct point, the monster was caught in a cage; otherwise, the monster escaped. After the student clicked on the number line, the unit fraction strips corresponding to the target fraction displayed on the number line. The game had three phases of 4.5 minutes each, with students completing as many trials as they could during each phase. In the first phase, the unit fraction strips appeared on the computer screen and students could move the strips onto the number line (for example, move two 1/3 strips onto the number line to determine the size of 2/3); the researcher provided feedback if the student used the strips incorrectly. In the second phase, the unit fraction strips appeared on the screen but could not be moved; the researcher encouraged the student to imagine moving the strips onto the number line. In the third phase, the unit fraction strips did not appear on the screen. Within each phase, the accuracy required to capture the monster increased as the student estimated fraction sizes correctly. Students completed an average of 74 trials in session one. Session two proceeded similarly as session one but with a focus on fraction sums instead of individual fractions. The researcher gave the student a tutorial in putting together unit fraction strips to determine the location on the 0–1 number line corresponding to the sum of two fractions (for example, for the sum 3/9 + 1/2, place three 1/9 strips on the number line, followed by a 1/2 strip). The student then played a computer game in which each trial involved attempting to capture a monster by correctly showing on the number the line the size of the fraction sum. The game had the same three 4.5-minute phases and the same increases in required accuracy within each phase as the game in session one. The two fractions in a given sum always had different denominators and summed to a value less than one. Students completed an average of 49 trials in session two. The time between sessions ranged from 1 to 6 days.
Students in the comparison group played a computer game intended to provide them with practice estimating the magnitude of individual fractions but not fraction sums. Researchers implemented the practice one-on-one with individual students over two sessions. Session one was the same as session one for the intervention group, as described above. Students completed 67 trials of the game, on average. In session two, the researcher reviewed with the student how to use unit fraction strips to estimate the size of fractions on a number line, and the student followed the procedure for three fractions. The student then played the same game as played in session one. Students completed 82 trials, on average. The time between sessions ranged from 1 to 6 days.
The researchers conducting the interventions followed scripts that specified the instructions and feedback to give the students in each session.
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