Impacts of rational number interventions among U.S. students in Grades 3 through 9 with mathematics difficulties are examined using a systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary goal of the meta-analysis was to identify instructional practices that are key drivers of student impacts. From approximately 1,200 published and unpublished study records, we identified 28 studies that met our inclusion criteria and coded the interventions for their instructional practices, intervention characteristics, and study design features. The random-effects mean effect size across all 28 studies (90 effect sizes) was 0.68 (SE = 0.08, p < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.51, 0.85]). The 95% prediction interval was −0.36 to 1.8. Using meta-regression techniques, we found the teaching of mathematical language (β = 0.50) and the use of the number line (β = 0.47) during intervention to be significantly associated with positive impacts when adjusted for controls. We discuss implications for intervention practice and study limitations along with the challenges of examining complex, multifaceted interventions.
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies are also included in the meta-analysis. See Appendix SM1 in the online Supplemental Materials for a full listing of the references for the 28 studies included in the meta-analysis along with references for studies mentioned in the Supplemental Materials.
2.
Achieve. (2020). The Algebra II variable: State policies for graduation requirements, assessments, and alignment to postsecondary expectations (ED610165). Education Resources Information Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610165.pdf
3.
*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(3), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000384
4.
BillsteinR.WilliamsonJ. (2008). Math thematics book 2. McDougal Littell.
5.
BoothJ. L.NewtonK. J.Twiss-GarrityL. K. (2014). The impact of fraction magnitude knowledge on algebra performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 118, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.09.001
6.
BorensteinM.HigginsJ. P. T.HedgesL. V.RothsteinH. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230
7.
*BottgeB. A.MaX.GassawayL.TolandM. D.ButlerM.ChoS.-J. (2014). Effects of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527240
8.
*BottgeB. A.RuedaE.GrantT. S.StephensA. C.LaroqueP. T. (2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600403
9.
BraithwaiteD. W.SieglerR. S. (2018). Developmental changes in the whole number bias. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12541. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12541
10.
*ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbittB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00066
11.
ByunS.IrvinM. J.BellB. A. (2015). Advanced math course taking: Effects on math achievement and college enrollment. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(4), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00220973.2014.919570
12.
ÇalisiciH. (2018). Middle school students’ learning difficulties in the ratio-proportion topic and a suggested solution: “Envelope technique.”Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(8), 1848–1855. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060830
13.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271
14.
CookB. G.TankersleyM.LandrumT. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500306
15.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029145313
DoughertyB.BryantD. P.BryantB. R.ShinM. (2017). Helping students with mathematics difficulties understand ratios and proportions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916674897
18.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
19.
*DysonN. I.JordanN. C.RodriguesJ.BarbieriC.RinneL. (2020). A fraction sense intervention for sixth graders with or at risk for mathematics difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518807139
20.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
21.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–95, § 8101(21)(A), 129 Stat.1939 (2015).
22.
ForsythS. R.PowellS. R. (2017). Differences in the mathematics-vocabulary knowledge of fifth-grade students with and without learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(4), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12144
*FuchsL. S.MaloneA. S.SchumacherR. F.NamkungJ.HamlettC. L.JordanN. C.SieglerR. S.GerstenR.ChangasP. (2016). Supported self-explaining during fraction intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000073
25.
FuchsL. S.Newman-GoncharR.SchumacherR.DoughertyB.BuckaN.KarpK. S.WoodwardJ.ClarkeB.JordanN. C.GerstenR.JayanthiM.KeatingB.MorganS. (2021). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Intervention in the elementary grades (WWC 2021006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://whatworks.ed.gov/
26.
*FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.LongJ.NamkungJ.HamlettC. L.CirinoP. T.JordanN. C.SieglerR.GerstenR.ChangasP. (2013). Improving at-risk learners’ understanding of fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032446
27.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional practices. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
28.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
29.
GerstenR.HaymondK.Newman-GoncharR.DiminoJ.JayanthiM. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591
30.
GerstenR.RolfhusE.ClarkeB.DeckerL. E.WilkinsC.DiminoJ. (2015). Intervention for first graders with limited number knowledge: Large-scale replication of a randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 516–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831214565787
31.
GesuelliK.-A.JordanN. C. (2024). Fraction arithmetic development: An examination of students’ patterns of growth and errors across the intermediate grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000828
GuzmanG.GoldbergT. S.SwansonH. L. (2018). A meta-analysis of self-monitoring on reading performance of K–12 students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000199
34.
HedbergE. (2014). ROBUMETA: Stata module to perform robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Statistical Software Components S457219, Boston College Department of Economics.
35.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
36.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation of meta-regression within dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
37.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
38.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
39.
HughesE. (2011). The effects of concrete-representational-abstract sequenced instruction on struggling learners’ acquisition, retention, and self-efficacy of fractions (Publication No. 747) [Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson University]. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/747/
40.
HwangJ.RiccominiP. J. (2021). A descriptive analysis of the error patterns observed in the fraction-computation solution pathways of students with and without learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 46(2), 132−142.
41.
IoannidisJ. P. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
42.
*JayanthiM.GerstenR.SchumacherR. F.DiminoJ.SmolkowskiK.SpalloneS. (2021). Improving struggling fifth-grade students’ understanding of fractions: A randomized controlled trial of an intervention that stresses both concepts and procedures. Exceptional Children, 88(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211008851
43.
JitendraA. K.AlghamdiA.EdmundsR.McKevettN. M.MouanoutouaJ.RoessleinR. (2021). The effects of tier 2 mathematics interventions for students with mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 87(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920969187
44.
*JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.StarJ. R.RodriguezM. C. (2016). The effects of schema-based instruction on the proportional thinking of students with mathematics difficulties with and without reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414554228
45.
KiersH. A. L.SmildeA. K. (2007). A comparison of various methods for multivariate regression with highly collinear variables. Statistical Methods and Applications, 16(2), 193–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-006-0025-5
46.
*KiuharaS. A.Gillespie RouseA.DaiT.WitzelB. S.MorphyP.UnkerB. (2020). Constructing written arguments to develop fraction knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000391
LinX.PowellS. R. (2021). Examining the relation between whole numbers and fractions: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 67, 102017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102017
49.
LiversS. D.Bay-WilliamsJ. M. (2014). Vocabulary support: Constructing (not obstructing) meaning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(3), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.3.0152
50.
*MaloneA. S.FuchsL. S.SterbaS. K.FuchsD.Foreman-MurrayL. (2019). Does an integrated focus on fractions and decimals improve at-risk students’ rational number magnitude performance?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101782
51.
MazzoccoM. M.DevlinK. T. (2008). Parts and ‘holes’: Gaps in rational number sense among children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11(5), 681−691.
*MoranoS.FloresM. M.HintonV.MeyerJ. (2020). A comparison of concrete-representational-abstract and concrete-representational-abstract-integrated fraction interventions for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 28(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727328
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/
57.
National Math Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. U.S. Department of Education.
58.
NiY.ZhouY. D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3
59.
Pearson Prentice-Hall. (2004). The connected math project.
60.
PowellS. R.GilbertJ. K.FuchsL. S. (2019). Variables influencing algebra performance: Understanding rational numbers is essential. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101758
61.
RojoM.KingS.GersibJ.BryantD. P. (2023). Rational number interventions for students with mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 44(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325221105520
Scott Foresman-Addision Wesley. (2011). enVisionMATH. Pearson.
64.
StataCorp. (2019). Stata (Version 16.0/IC)[for Mac].
65.
Tanner-SmithE. E.TiptonE. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1091
66.
TiptonE. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011
VeveaJ. L.HedgesL. V. (1995). A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika, 60(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294384
69.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the Metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
*XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem—Solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390030501
Supplementary Material
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.
