Closing the Word-Problem Achievement Gap in First Grade: Schema-Based Word-Problem Intervention with Embedded Language Comprehension Instruction.

The main purpose of this study was to test the effects of word-problem intervention, with versus without embedded language comprehension instruction, on at-risk 1st graders' word-problem performance. We also isolated the need for a structured approach to word-problem intervention and tested the efficacy of schema-based instruction at 1st grade. Children (n=391; mean age = 6.53, SD = 0.32) were randomly assigned to 4 conditions: schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language instruction, the same word-problem intervention but without language comprehension instruction, structured number knowledge intervention without a structured word-problem component, and a control group. Each intervention included 45 30-min sessions. Multilevel models, accounting for classroom and school effects, revealed the efficacy of schema-based word-problem intervention at 1st grade, with both word-problem conditions outperforming the number knowledge condition and the control group. Yet, word-problem performance was significantly stronger for the schema-based condition with embedded language comprehension instruction compared to the schema-based condition without language comprehension instruction. Number knowledge intervention conveyed no word-problem advantage over the control group, even though all 3 intervention conditions outperformed the control group on arithmetic. Results demonstrate the importance of a structured approach to word-problem intervention; the efficacy of schema-based instruction at 1st grade; and the added value of language comprehension instruction within word-problem intervention. Results also provide causal evidence on the role of language comprehension in word-problem solving.

Effects of First-Grade Number Knowledge Tutoring With Contrasting Forms of Practice.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 1st-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Tutoring occurred 3 times per week for 16 weeks. In each 30-min session, the major emphasis (25 min) was number knowledge; the other 5 min provided practice in 1 of 2 forms. Nonspeeded practice reinforced relations and principles addressed in number knowledge tutoring. Speeded practice promoted quick responding and use of efficient counting procedures to generate many correct responses. At-risk students were randomly assigned to number knowledge tutoring with speeded practice (n = 195), number knowledge tutoring with nonspeeded practice (n = 190), and control (no tutoring, n = 206). Each tutoring condition produced stronger learning than control on all 4 mathematics outcomes. Speeded practice produced stronger learning than nonspeeded practice on arithmetic and 2-digit calculations, but effects were comparable on number knowledge and word problems. Effects of both practice conditions on arithmetic were partially mediated by increased reliance on retrieval, but only speeded practice helped at-risk children compensate for weak reasoning ability.

Improving Language Comprehension to Enhance Word-Problem Solving.

The focus of this article is the role of language comprehension within word-problem solving (WPS). The role of the language comprehension in WPS is explained, and an overview of research illustrating language comprehension's contribution to WPS is described. Next, an innovative intervention that embeds WP-specific language comprehension instruction within a validated form of schema-based WP intervention is described, and the methods and results of a randomized controlled trial assessing the added value of embedding WP-specific language comprehension instruction are outlined. Implications for practice and future research are drawn.

Dynamic Assessment of Algebraic Learning in Predicting Third Graders' Development of Mathematical Problem Solving.

Dynamic assessment (DA) involves helping students learn a task and indexing responsiveness to that instruction as a measure of learning potential. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a DA of algebraic learning in predicting 3(rd) graders' development of mathematics problem solving. In the fall, 122 3(rd)-grade students were assessed on language, nonverbal reasoning, attentive behavior, calculations, word-problem skill, and DA. On the basis of random assignment, students received 16 weeks of validated instruction on word problems or received 16 weeks of conventional instruction on word problems. Then, students were assessed on word-problem measures proximal and distal to instruction. Structural equation measurement models showed that DA measured a distinct dimension of pretreatment ability and that proximal and distal word-problem measures were needed to account for outcome. Structural equation modeling showed that instruction (conventional vs. validated) was sufficient to account for math word-problem outcome proximal to instruction; by contrast, language, pretreatment math skill, and DA were needed to forecast learning on word-problem outcomes more distal to instruction. Findings are discussed in terms of responsiveness-to-intervention models for preventing and identifying learning disabilities.

Effects of Small-Group Tutoring with and without Validated Classroom Instruction on At-Risk Students' Math Problem Solving: Are Two Tiers of Prevention Better Than One?

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk (AR) students' math problem solving. Stratifying within schools, 119 3(rd)-grade classes were randomly assigned to conventional or validated problem-solving instruction (Hot Math [schema-broadening instruction]). Students identified as AR (n = 243) were randomly assigned, within classroom conditions, to receive Hot Math tutoring or not. Students were tested on problem-solving and math applications measures before and after 16 weeks of intervention. Analyses of variance, which accounted for the nested structure of the data, revealed the tutored students who received validated classroom instruction achieved better than tutored students who received conventional classroom instruction (ES = 1.34). However, the advantage for tutoring over no tutoring was similar whether or not students received validated or conventional classroom instruction (ESs = 1.18 and 1.13). Tutoring, not validated classroom instruction reduced the prevalence of math difficulty. Implications for responsiveness-to-intervention prevention models and for enhancing math problem-solving instruction are discussed.