Powell, Sarah R.; Driver, Melissa K. (2015). Learning Disability Quarterly, v38 n4 p221-233. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1075501
Reviewed: July 2019
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Addition Fluency |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
5.34 |
4.29 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Addition Fluency |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
addition tutoring without language/vocab component vs. comparison;
|
5.87 |
4.29 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Addition Fluency |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
addition tutoring with language/vocab component vs. comparison;
|
4.83 |
4.29 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 28% | |
| White | 52% |
| Hispanic | 12% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
The study took place in first-grade classrooms in the mid-Atlantic region.
Of the 98 students in the analytic sample, approximately 49 percent were female, 15 percent had a school-identified disability, and 10 percent were learning English as a second language. The racial and ethnic background of students was 20 percent black, 52 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 3 percent other, and 12 percent unknown. During the 2012 through 2013 school year, the average percentage of students receiving reduced and/or free lunch across the 18 schools was 43.7%. (p. 224)
The two addition tutoring intervention conditions—with and without the math vocabulary component—were the same with the exception of the embedded math vocabulary component. Specifically, students in both addition tutoring conditions received tutoring sessions up to 3 times per week for 10 to 15 minutes each session from the first week of March to the last week of April (15 tutoring sessions total). Sessions were led by trained tutors presumably in small groups by condition. Three activities occurred in both tutoring conditions: flash cards, tutor-led lesson, and paper-and-pencil review. There were two key differences between the two tutoring conditions. The students in the tutoring condition with the math vocabulary component participated in a mathematics vocabulary introduction or review at the start of each session, and the tutor emphasized vocabulary terms during the tutor-led lesson. (pp. 225, 226)
Students in the business-as-usual comparison condition received no addition tutoring.
Hired tutors participated in a two-hour training to familiarize themselves with and practice the two addition tutoring interventions. Each tutoring session had a lesson guide to ensure that the tutors covered lesson materials in a similar manner. Tutors also met with the project coordinator at the end of the second and fourth weeks of tutoring to discuss implementation and resolve any issues related to student behavior. (p. 225)
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