Fraction Face-Off! (previously Fraction Challenge)
Study: Fuchs et al. (2012)

Summary

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

Target Grades:
4
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Fractions, decimals (rational number)
Where to Obtain:
Vanderbilt University
615-343-4782
Initial Cost:
$80.00 per teacher
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

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, manipulatives License is for one teacher’s use.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
1 day of training

In a 1-day training session for tutors, (a) an overview of the tutoring program, goals, and topics is presented, and (b) the tutoring procedures are explained for each activity in the first set of tutoring topics. After presentation of each activity, tutors practice the activity with a partner, with more practice completed in the next 2 weeks. One week later, in a second session, tutors learn the drill/practice math fact activities. At the end of that week, a review session is held. Tutoring begins one week later. Also, tutors attend weekly meetings to learn about and practice upcoming tutoring topics. In these weekly sessions, tutors also discuss difficulties they face. These sessions are supervised by a building or district instructional support person.


The manuals have already been used widely, and users report high levels of satisfaction.

Access to Technical Support:
Contact lynn.davies@vanderbilt.edu for information on how to arrange a 1-day workshop.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
30
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
12
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

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

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
Phone Number
615-343-4782
Website

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$80.00
Unit of cost
teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

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, manipulatives License is for one teacher’s use.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   2-3

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
30
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
12
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
At-cost

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
1 day of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
In a 1-day training session for tutors, (a) an overview of the tutoring program, goals, and topics is presented, and (b) the tutoring procedures are explained for each activity in the first set of tutoring topics. After presentation of each activity, tutors practice the activity with a partner, with more practice completed in the next 2 weeks. One week later, in a second session, tutors learn the drill/practice math fact activities. At the end of that week, a review session is held. Tutoring begins one week later. Also, tutors attend weekly meetings to learn about and practice upcoming tutoring topics. In these weekly sessions, tutors also discuss difficulties they face. These sessions are supervised by a building or district instructional support person.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
The manuals have already been used widely, and users report high levels of satisfaction.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Contact lynn.davies@vanderbilt.edu for information on how to arrange a 1-day workshop.

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

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. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Study Information

Study Citations

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. Improving At-Risk Learners' Understanding of Fractions. To obtain: lynn.davies@vanderbilt.edu

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The sample comprised fourth-grade students from 53 classrooms in 13 schools, 290 of whom were identified as AR. We randomly assigned the AR students, at the individual level, stratifying by classroom and risk severity, to fraction intervention or control groups. Another 292 low-risk classmates served as a comparison group for interpreting AR progress in response to the same classroom fraction instruction and for gauging the extent to which AR students closed the fraction achievement gap. We sampled 2-8 AR and low-risk students per classroom. When screening yielded more students than could be accommodated in the study, we randomly selected students for participation. We defined risk 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 AR sample from below the 17th percentile (more severe) and the other half from between the 18th and 34th percentiles (less severe). In the beginning-of-fourth-grade range of performance, the WRAT almost entirely samples whole-number items. Because this study was not about intellectual disability, we excluded 18 students with T-scores below the 9th percentile on both subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence (WASI; Psychological Corporation, 1999), as per the study protocol. IN THIS TRC REVIEW, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE ANALYZED EFFECTS AS A FUNCTION OF MOVE SEVERE (<17TH PERCENTILE) VS. LESS SEVERE RISK (BETWEEN 18TH AND 34TH PERCENTILES). THERE WAS NO INTERACTION BETWEEN RISK SEVERE AND INTERVENTION CONDITION, INDICATING FRACTION CHALLENGE WAS COMPARABLY EFFECTIVE FOR STUDENTS WITH MORE AND LESS SEVERE RISK. WE ALSO REPORT EFFECT SIZES SEPARATELY FOR MORE AND LESS SEVERE RISK IN THE BODY OF THE PAPER. IN THISI WAY, WE BELIEVE THE REPORT MEETS THE TRC CRITERION ON PARTICIPANTS. Of the 290 AR students, 22 moved (10 tutored; 12 controls) before the end of the study, and another nine had at least one piece of missing data. These 31 students did not differ from the remaining students on pretest measures, and Little's (l988) MCAR test indicated data were missing at random (i.e., there was no identifiable pattern to the missing data). We therefore omitted these 31 cases, leaving 259 students in the final AR sample: 129 tutored students (60 more severe; 69 less severe) and 130 control students (66 more severe; 64 less severe). In the comparison group of 292 low-risk students, 10 moved prior to the end of the study. These 10 students did not differ from remaining students on pretest measures, and Little's MCAR test indicated data were missing at random. We therefore omitted these 10 cases. See Table 1 (in attached report) for pretest WRAT performance and demographic data for each study condition. Because WRAT was the defining variable for risk severity (more severe vs. less severe), the latter group outperformed the former, but there was no difference between conditions (tutoring vs. control) and no revealed no interaction between severity and condition. Inclusion of low-risk students revealed that these students performed reliably higher than each of the four AR groups. Demographic data (not collected for low-risk students) was comparable for the AR groups, as a function of risk severity and condition.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
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).

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
In report, referred to as "intervention" group.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
In report, referred to as "control" group.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4 129 130 0.27
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 66 70 0.10
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 24 24 0.00
White 33 30 0.03
Other 6 6 0.00

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 107 107 0.07
No Subsidized Lunch 22 23 0.09

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities 9 5 0.26
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability 120 125 0.28

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 64 60 0.05
Male 65 70 0.10

Mean Effect Size

0.11

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Full Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
: To investigate effects of intervention focused primarily on understanding of fractions and whether effects are moderated by child characteristics, we identified AR students and randomly assigned them to tutoring and control conditions at the individual student level, while stratifying by classroom and severity of students’ risk status.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
3
Minimum group size
2
Maximum group size
3

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
12.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
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.

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).

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
The mean percentage of points addressed was 97.69 (SD = 3.39).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
No

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
We assessed pretreatment comparability with a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on pretest performance for each measure. In these analyses, treatment condition (intervention vs. control) and risk severity (more severe vs. less severe) were the factors. At the start of intervention, there were no significant effects on any measure for treatment condition or for the interaction between treatment condition and risk severity. On whole-number calculations and NAEP, there was a significant main effect for risk severity (across tutored and control groups), which does not threaten the study’s internal validity. See Table 3 (in attached report) for means and standard deviations. We assessed posttest AR students’ fraction performance as a function of treatment condition and risk severity using parallel ANOVAs. Intervention enhanced the fraction performance of AR learners, and this effect was not moderated by students’ risk severity. See Table 3 (in attached report) for means and standard deviations. Note that for each measure, we report the intra-class correlation (ICC) for the effect of classrooms (and teachers) in which children received their core instruction. These ICCs were negligible or small and, in no case, did their inclusion in the model affect findings.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
WWC & E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Primary Mathematics

Effectiveness: Fraction Face-Off! is a supplemental math program developed to support fourth-grade students who need assistance solving fraction problems. Teachers use program materials with individual students or small groups to promote understanding of the magnitude of fractions, to compare two fractions, to put three fractions in order, and to place fractions on a number line.

Studies Reviewed: 1 study met standards out of 1 study total.

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

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.