Addressing Challenging Mathematics Standards With At-Risk Learners: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Fractions Intervention at Third Grade
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2021
Addressing Challenging Mathematics Standards With At-Risk Learners: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Fractions Intervention at Third Grade
The purposes of this study were to assess the effects of fractions intervention for students who are at risk for poor outcomes and to examine whether a component that combines self-regulated learning with growth-mindset instruction (SR-GM) provides added value for improving outcomes. At-risk students (N = 84) were randomly assigned to three conditions: fractions intervention, fractions intervention with embedded SR-GM, and a control group. Intervention was conducted three times per week for 35 min per session for 13 weeks. Multilevel models indicated both fractions intervention conditions produced strong effects, with no added value for SR-GM. Posttest fractions achievement gaps for both intervention conditions held steady, narrowed, or closed, whereas the control group’s gaps remained sizeable or grew. Results suggest that intervention can address challenging mathematics standards for at-risk learners and that SR-GM instruction may not be necessary in the context of strong intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: Social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
2.
BarbieriC. A.RodriguesJ.DysonN.JordanN. C. (2020). Improving fraction understanding in sixth graders with mathematics difficulties: Effects of a number line approach combined with cognitive learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000384
3.
BaroodyA. J. (1984). Children’s difficulties in subtraction: Some causes and questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 203–213.
4.
BauerD. J.SterbaS. K.HallforsD. D. (2008). Evaluating group-based interventions when control participants are ungrouped. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43(2), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170802034810
5.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. W. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.
6.
CaseP. C.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600101
7.
CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0033
8.
CervoneD. (1993). The role of self-referent cognitions in goal setting, motivation, and performance. In RabinowitzM. (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 57–95). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9.
CoureyS. J. (2006). Informal knowledge and fraction instruction in third grade (Publication No. 3229917). [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
10.
Cuenca-CarolinoY.Freeman-GreenS.StephensonG. W.HauthC. (2016). Self-regulated strategy development for teaching multi-step equations to middle school students struggling in math. The Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915622021
11.
De CorteE.VerschaffelL.Op’t EyndeP. (2000). Self-regulation: A characteristic and a goal of mathematics education. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 687–726). Academic Press.
12.
DommettE. J.DevonshireI. M.SewterE.GreenfliedS. A. (2013). The impact of participation in a neuroscience course on motivational measures and academic performance. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.05.002
13.
EdgertonA. K.FuchsD.FuchsL. (2020). New standards and old divides: Policy attitudes about college- and career-ready standards for students with disabilities. Teachers College Record, 122(1). https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?contentid=23087
14.
EnnisR. P.LosinskiM. (2019). Intervention to improve fraction skills for students with disabilities: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918817504
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.BurchM.HamlettC. L.OwenR.SchroeterK. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306
16.
FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.PowellS. R. (2003). Second-Grade Calculations Battery. Available from L. S. Fuchs, 228 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.
17.
MaloneA. S.FuchsL. S. (2017). Fraction Battery–Revised. Available from L. S. Fuchs, 228 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.
18.
FuchsL. S.MaloneA. S.SchumacherR. F.NamkungJ.HamlettC. L.JordanN. C.SeiglerR. S.GerstenR.ChangasP. (2016). Supported self-explaining during fraction intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000073
19.
FuchsL. S.MaloneA. S.WangA.KrowkaS.SchumacherR. F.FuchsD. (2019). Super Solvers–Third Grade–Revised. Available from L. S. Fuchs, 228 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.
FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA. S.WangA.HamlettC. L. (2016). Effects of intervention to improve at-risk fourth graders’ understanding, calculations, and word problems with fractions. Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 625–651. https://doi.org/10.1086/686303
22.
FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.SterbaS. K.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA.HamlettC. L.JordanN.C.GerstenR.SieglerR.ChangasP. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude–treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034341
23.
FusonK. (1984). More complexities in subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 214–255.
24.
GelmanAHillJ.YajimaM. (2012). Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.618213
25.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.353
26.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414–424.
27.
HamdanN.GundersonE. A. (2017). The number line is a critical spatial-numerical representation: Evidence from a fraction intervention. Developmental Psychology, 53(3), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev000025
28.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.AdkinsM. (2015). Practice-based professional development and self-regulated strategy development for Tier 2, at-risk writers in second grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.003
HuntJ. H. (2014). Effects of a supplemental intervention focused in equivalency concepts for students with varying abilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513507780
31.
JayanthiM.GerstenR.SchumacherR. F.DiminoJ.SmolkowskiK.SpalloneS. (2020). The impact of intervention on struggling fifth-grade students understanding of fractions: A randomized controlled trial. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32.
JordanN. C.HansenN.FuchsL. S.SieglerR. S.GerstenR.MicklosD. (2013). Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.001
33.
LosinskiM.ParksR. P.SandersS.WisemanN. (2019). An investigation of SRSD to teach fractions to students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918813980
34.
MaloneA. S.FuchsL. S.SterbaS. K.FuchsD.Foreman-MurrayL. (in press). Does an integrated focus on fractions and decimals improve at-risk students’ rational number magnitude performance?Contemporary Educational Psychology.
35.
Melby-LervagM.HulmeC. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228
36.
MitchellZ. P.MilanM. A. (1983). Imitation of high-interest comic strip models’ appropriate classroom behavior: Acquisition and generalization. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 5(2), 15–30.
37.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8th ed.).
38.
NamkungJ. M.FuchsL. S.KoziolN. (2018). Does initial learning about the meaning of fractions challenging for students with adequate whole-number skill?Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.018
39.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
40.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
41.
NelsonG.PowellS. R. (2018). Computation error analysis: Students with mathematics difficulty compared to typically achieving students. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 43(3), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417745627
42.
ObareF.BirungiH.DeaconB.BurnetR. (2013). Effectiveness of using comic books to communicate HUB and AID messages to in-school youth: Insights from a pilot intervention study in Nairobi, Kenya. African Population Studies, 27(2), 203–215.
43.
PerkinsV.CullinanD. (1984). Effects of direct instruction intervention for fraction skills. Education & Treatment of Children, 7(2), 109–117.
44.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S. (2015). Intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(4), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12087
45.
RobertsC.RobertsS. A. (2005). Design and analysis of clinical trials with clustering effects due to treatment. Clinical Trials, 2(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn076oa
46.
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM.SusperreguyM. I.ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101
47.
WangA. Y.FuchsL. S.FuchsD.GilbertJ. K.KrowkaS.AbramsonR. (2019). Embedding self-regulation instruction within fractions intervention for third graders with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419851750
48.
WechslerD. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. Psychological Corporation.
49.
WilkinsonG. S.RobertsonG. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test (4th ed.). Wide Range.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
