Proficiency with Number Concepts and Operations: Replicating the Efficacy of a First-Grade Mathematics Intervention
Saved in:
| Title: | Proficiency with Number Concepts and Operations: Replicating the Efficacy of a First-Grade Mathematics Intervention |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Christian T. Doabler, Ben Clarke, Jessica E. Turtura, Marah Sutherland (ORCID |
| Source: | Grantee Submission. 2023. |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 32 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Institute of Education Sciences (ED) |
| Contract Number: | R324A090341 R324A160046 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Elementary Education Grade 1 Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Number Concepts, Mathematics Instruction, Grade 1, Elementary School Students, Intervention, Outcome Measures, Concept Formation, Teaching Methods, Small Group Instruction, Comparative Analysis, Mathematics Tests |
| Geographic Terms: | Massachusetts (Boston) |
| DOI: | 10.1177/00222194231209017 |
| Abstract: | Conceptual replications are part and parcel of education science. Methodologically rigorous conceptual replication studies permit researchers to test and strengthen the generalizability of a study's initial findings. The current conceptual replication sought to replicate the efficacy of a small-group, first-grade mathematics intervention with 240 first-grade students with mathematics difficulties in a new geographical region. Participating students were randomized into one of three conditions: (a) 2:1 mathematics intervention group, (b) 5:1 mathematics intervention group, or (c) business-as-usual instruction. Relative to the original study, findings from the replication varied. When comparing the treatment groups to the control, results suggested positive effects on all outcome measures, including a follow-up assessment administered one year later. However, differences between the two treatment groups based on group size were not found in the mathematics outcome measures. Both groups also received commensurate levels of observed instructional interactions. Implications for unpacking contextual differences between original research and their replications as well as using future research to explore the quantity and quality of instructional interactions as ways to explain variation in findings of group size are discussed. [This is the online first version of an article published in "Journal of Learning Disabilities."] |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| IES Funded: | Yes |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | ED641777 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Conceptual replications are part and parcel of education science. Methodologically rigorous conceptual replication studies permit researchers to test and strengthen the generalizability of a study's initial findings. The current conceptual replication sought to replicate the efficacy of a small-group, first-grade mathematics intervention with 240 first-grade students with mathematics difficulties in a new geographical region. Participating students were randomized into one of three conditions: (a) 2:1 mathematics intervention group, (b) 5:1 mathematics intervention group, or (c) business-as-usual instruction. Relative to the original study, findings from the replication varied. When comparing the treatment groups to the control, results suggested positive effects on all outcome measures, including a follow-up assessment administered one year later. However, differences between the two treatment groups based on group size were not found in the mathematics outcome measures. Both groups also received commensurate levels of observed instructional interactions. Implications for unpacking contextual differences between original research and their replications as well as using future research to explore the quantity and quality of instructional interactions as ways to explain variation in findings of group size are discussed. [This is the online first version of an article published in "Journal of Learning Disabilities."] |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1177/00222194231209017 |
