A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Impact of Schema-Based Instruction on Mathematical Outcomes for Third-Grade Students with Mathematics Difficulties [Word problem intervention vs. control]
Jitendra, Asha K.; Dupuis, Danielle N.; Rodriguez, Michael C.; Zaslofsky, Anne F.; Slater, Susan; Cozine-Corroy, Kelly; Church, Chris (2013). Elementary School Journal, v114 n2 p252-276. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1015539
-
examining109Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Tutoring |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
200.69 |
197.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Problem Solving (WPS; Jitendra et al., 2007) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Tutoring |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.12 |
23.18 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Word Problem Solving (WPS; Jitendra et al., 2007) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Tutoring |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
24.99 |
23.71 |
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.
-
31% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- 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
Midwest
-
Race Asian 6% Black 25% Native American 6% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 32% Not Hispanic or Latino 68%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 28 general education classrooms across nine elementary schools in a large urban school district in the midwestern United States.
Study sample
This study examined participants who were third-grader students receiving mathematics instruction in general education classrooms and considered in need of supplemental mathematics support. Those students who needed mathematics support had scored at or below the 40th percentile on the mathematics subtest and a demonstrated reading score of at least a beginning second-grade level (or one grade level behind). The student demographic descriptions indicated 46% and 49% male, respective to the control and intervention groups. Additionally, the student sample population had a 39% to 38% eligibility for free/reduced lunch, 17% English language learner status, and 8% and 5% special education status, respective to the control and intervention groups.
Intervention Group
Participating students in both conditions first received the core mathematics program of their respective classrooms. Tutoring for the students in the intervention and comparison conditions followed the core mathematics instruction. Tutoring for both conditions was administered in small groups at various locations in the participating students' schools (e.g., library, cafeteria, etc.). In the tutoring sessions of the intervention group, students received 30 minutes of supplemental mathematics instruction using schema-based instruction (SBI) five times a week for 12 weeks. The SBI curriculum was designed to provide intensive instruction on word problem solving instruction. More specifically, the SBI curriculum focused on enhancing students’ reasoning skills within the context of solving one-step and two-step word problems involving Change, Group, and Compare problem types. (pp. 262, 263)
Comparison Group
Participating students in both conditions first received the core mathematics program of their respective classrooms. Tutoring for the students in the intervention and comparison conditions followed the core mathematics instruction. Tutoring for both conditions was administered in small groups at various locations in the participating students' schools (e.g., library, cafeteria, etc.). In the tutoring sessions of the comparison group, students received 30 minutes of supplemental mathematics instruction using a comparison tutoring program five times a week for 12 weeks. The comparison tutoring programs were developed by the study authors and classroom teachers. Specifically, the study authors approached teachers in the early fall of the school year to have them select the number and operations topics of their curricula for which they believed students struggling in mathematics needed additional instruction. These including place value, whole number addition and subtraction computation strategies, and word problem solving. (pp. 262, 263)
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation, tutors in both conditions received an introductory one-day training that focused on an overview of students with MD, behavior management techniques, and principles of effective instruction. Comparison group tutors also received an additional one-day training that included an explanation of the content, demonstrations of instructional strategies, and guidance using the mathematical tools and materials in the district-adopted third-grade mathematics program. SBI tutors received two days of additional training that included an explanation and review of SBI curriculum and materials. This training focused on explicit, systematic instruction, and guidance to implement critical instructional procedures. In addition, both SBI and comparison group tutors received ongoing support from project staff via site visits, monthly meetings, and email communications. (pp. 261, 262)
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).