Fraction Face-Off! (previously Fraction Challenge)

Study: Fuchs, Schumacher, Long, Namkung, Hamlett, et al. (2012)

Fuchs, L.S., Schumacher, R.F., Long, J., Namkung, J., Hamlett, C.L., Cirino, P.T., Changas, P., Jordan, N.C., Siegler, R., & Gersten, R. (2012). Improving At-Risk Learners’ Understanding of Fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 683-700. doi: 10.1037/a0032446
Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Fraction Face-Off! is a math program focused on improving student’s knowledge and understanding of fractions and decimals.

 

Fraction Face-Off! is intended for use with fourth-grade students with learning disabilities, behavioral disabilities, and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic area of focus is math (fractions, decimals).

Fraction Face-Off! was tested at one site for one year in Nashville, TN.

Where to obtain:
Lynn Davies
lynn.a.davies@vanderbilt.edu
(615)-343-4782

Cost: The manual provides all information necessary for implementation and includes masters of all materials. Schools need to make copies of materials (we recommend lamination for posters and reusable materials) and provide concrete reinforcers and manipulatives involved in the program.

INCLUDED: Manual ($40), masters of all materials ($40)

NOT INCLUDED: individual student copies of materials, concrete reinforcers, and manipulatives

License is for one teacher’s use.

Order form for Fraction Face-Off! tutoring manuals:  http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/pdfs/fraction_face-off.pdf

Fraction Face-Off! is designed for use with individual students or small groups of students.

Fraction Face-Off! takes 30 minutes per session with a recommended three sessions per week for 12 weeks.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals. No technology required.

Training requirements: One full day of training, plus follow-up by school or district staff with weekly supervision of tutors.

In a one-day training workshop for tutors, (a) an overview of the tutoring program, goals, and topics is presented, and (b) tutoring procedures are modeled and practiced for each activity in the first set of tutoring topics. Following demonstration by the trainer, tutors practice techniques and activities in pairs and receive feedback. Additional consultation with the trainer is available by email or phone following training. Tutors attend weekly meetings to learn about and practice upcoming program topics and to discuss challenges. These weekly meetings are supervised by a building or district instructional support person.

Instructors may be certified teachers or paraprofessionals. Users report high levels of satisfaction with tutoring manuals.

To schedule Fraction Face-Off! tutor training, contact Lynn.A.Davies@vanderbilt.edu

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Sample size: 281 students (130 control, 129 program)

Risk Status: Risk was defined as performance on a broad-based calculations assessment (Wide Range Achievement Test–4 or WRAT-4; Wilkinson, 2004) below the 35th percentile, and purposely sampled half the at-risk sample from below the 17th percentile (more severe) and the other half from between the 18th and 34th percentiles (less severe).

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 129

100% 

130 

100% 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

66

51.2%

70

53.8%

 

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

24

18.6%

24

18.5%

 

  White

33

25.6%

30

23.1%

 

  Other

6

4.7%

6

4.6%

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

107

82.9%

107

82.3%

 

  No subsidized lunch

22

17.1%

23

17.7%

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

9

7%

5

3.9%

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

120

93.0%

125

96.1%

 

ELL status

  English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

64

49.6%

60

46.3%

 

Male

65

50.4%

70

53.8%

 

Training of Instructors: Tutors were licensed teachers or non-licensed personnel, each of whom was responsible for two to four tutoring groups. Tutors were trained in a 2-day workshop, with bi-weekly 1 hour meetings providing additional updates on upcoming tutoring topics and problem solving concerning challenging students.

Design: Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Yes.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences?: Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1?: No.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: Convincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Every intervention session was audiotaped. 20% of recordings (n = 293) were randomly sampled such that tutor, student, and lesson were sampled comparably. A research assistant listened to each sampled tape, while completing a checklist to identify the essential points the tutor conducted. Two research assistants independently listened to 20% (n = 58) of the 293 recordings to assess concordance. The mean difference in score was 1.74% (SD = 2.81).

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: The mean percentage of points addressed was 97.69 (SD = 3.39).

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure 

Reliability statistics

(specify type of realibility, e.g. Cronbach's alpha, IRT reliability, temporal stability, inter-rater)

Relevance to program instructional content Exposure to related content among control group

Comparing Fractions

Alpha on this sample was 0.84.

Targeted

Classroom curriculum addressed with skill, but with less emphasis

Fraction Number Line

Alpha on this sample was 0.80.

Targeted

Classroom curriculum addressed with skill, but with less emphasis

Fraction Calculations

Alpha on this sample was 0.90.

Targeted

Classroom curriculum addressed with skill, but with GREATER emphasis

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

(specify type of reliability, e.g. Cronbach's alpha, IRT reliability, temporal stability, inter-rater)

Relevance to program instructional content Exposure to related content among control group

National Assessment of Educational Progress

Alpha on the sample was 0.72.

Broader

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 4 Math

Mean ES - Targeted: 1.81*

Mean ES - Broader: 0.92*

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Math Comparing Fractions 1.81***
Math Fraction Number Line 1.13***
Math Fraction Calculations 2.49***

 Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Math National Assessment of Educational Progress 0.92***

 

Key
*       p ≤ 0.05
**     p ≤ 0.01
***   p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): N/A

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: No

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: Yes

 

Disaggregated  Outcome Data Available for Students at 20th Percentile or Below

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Math Comparing Fractions 1.64***
Math Fraction Number Line 1.07***
Math Fraction Calculations 2.48***

 Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Math National Assessment of Educational Progress 0.85***

 

Key
*      p ≤ 0.05
**    p ≤ 0.01
***  p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Administration Group Size: Small Group, (n=2-3)

Duration of Intervention: 30 minutes, 3 times a week, 12 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, 2 one-day trainings with follow-up

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: WWC & E-ESSA

What Works Clearinghouse Review

WWC only reviewed the report “Improving at-risk learners’ understanding of fractions.” The findings from this review do not reflect the full body of research evidence on Fraction Face-Off.

WWC Rating: The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards without reservations.

Full Report

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: Two 12-week studies in Nashville evaluated Fraction Face-Off! in comparison to ordinary teaching without supplemental lessons. Most measures did not qualify for review because they were made by the experimenters. The one exception was a measure composed of 19 items taken from past National Assessment of Educational Progress tests. On this measure, Fraction Face-Off! had an average effect size of +0.51, qualifying it for the ESSA “Strong” category and for a “Solid Outcomes” rating (at least two studies with effect size of at least +0.20).

Number of Studies: 2

Average Effect Size: 0.51

Full Report

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies