Pirate Math Individual Tutoring
Study: Fuchs et al. (2009)

Summary

Pirate Math Individual Tutoring is a tutoring program for remediating the calculation and word-problem deficits and for promoting the algebraic cognition of third-grade students at-risk or with identified math disability. The program is based on schema-broadening instruction, with which students learn to think about word problems in terms of problem types and learn to classify word problems in terms of those problem types, even when the problems incorporate irrelevant information or involve money or incorporate relevant information in pictures, charts, or figures or combine problem types so that problems require 2-step solutions. Students learn to represent the structure of each type of word problem using an algebraic equation and learn to solve those algebraic equations. The program is organized in terms of 4 units. The first unit teaches skills that are foundational skills to word problems (counting strategies for answering math facts, 2-step procedural calculations, solving algebraic equations, and checking word-problem solutions). Then, each of the next 3 units focuses on one problem type, with systematic cumulative review embedded throughout the units. The three problem types are two problems (where two quantities are combined to make a new amount), difference problems (where two quantities are compared), and change problems (where an event occurs to increase or decrease an initial amount). Sessions occur 3 times per week for 20-30 minutes per sessions across 16 weeks on a one-to-one basis. Tutors can be certified or noncertified teachers, each of whom is trained in a 1-day session and then supervised with bi-weekly meetings. Pirate Math has been shown to improve outcomes on math fact fluency, procedural computational skill, word-problem skill, and algebra skill.

Target Grades:
3
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Computation
  • Concepts and/or word problems
  • Algebra
Where to Obtain:
Lynn S. Fuchs, Pamela M. Seethaler, Sarah R. Powell, & Douglas Fuchs
228 Peabody Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203
615-343-4782
www.kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals
Initial Cost:
$40.00 per school
Replacement Cost:
Free

Each Pirate Math Individual Tutoring manual costs $40. The Pirate Math manual contains 48 lessons. Each lesson has a tutor script (which is reviewed but not read verbatim) and templates for student worksheets. The manual also has templates for math fact flash cards, word-problem sorting cards, graphs to monitor student progress, and treasure maps for motivation. All templates required for implementation are included in the manual. (The only additional materials required are pencils and highlighters.)

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:
Training not required

One full-day workshop of instruction; practice implementing the procedures alone and with other tutors during the subsequent week; a practice session conducted with a supervisor who provides corrective feedback; tutors studying (not reading) scripts; and meetings among tutors and the supervisor every 2-3 weeks to address problems or questions are they arise.


The manuals guided implementation of tutoring during the series of studies conducted with Pirate Math both at the site proximal to the developers and at a site distal to the developers, with comparable effects at both sides. The training procedures were identical to those recommended above.

Access to Technical Support:
The manuals guided implementation of tutoring during the series of studies conducted with Pirate Math both at the site proximal to the developers and at a site distal to the developers, with comparable effects at both sides. The training procedures were identical to those recommended above.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
20
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
16
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:

Pirate Math Individual Tutoring is a tutoring program for remediating the calculation and word-problem deficits and for promoting the algebraic cognition of third-grade students at-risk or with identified math disability. The program is based on schema-broadening instruction, with which students learn to think about word problems in terms of problem types and learn to classify word problems in terms of those problem types, even when the problems incorporate irrelevant information or involve money or incorporate relevant information in pictures, charts, or figures or combine problem types so that problems require 2-step solutions. Students learn to represent the structure of each type of word problem using an algebraic equation and learn to solve those algebraic equations. The program is organized in terms of 4 units. The first unit teaches skills that are foundational skills to word problems (counting strategies for answering math facts, 2-step procedural calculations, solving algebraic equations, and checking word-problem solutions). Then, each of the next 3 units focuses on one problem type, with systematic cumulative review embedded throughout the units. The three problem types are two problems (where two quantities are combined to make a new amount), difference problems (where two quantities are compared), and change problems (where an event occurs to increase or decrease an initial amount). Sessions occur 3 times per week for 20-30 minutes per sessions across 16 weeks on a one-to-one basis. Tutors can be certified or noncertified teachers, each of whom is trained in a 1-day session and then supervised with bi-weekly meetings. Pirate Math has been shown to improve outcomes on math fact fluency, procedural computational skill, word-problem skill, and algebra skill.

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
selected Third grade
not 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.

selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not 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

selected Computation
selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
selected Algebra
not 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
228 Peabody Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203
Phone Number
615-343-4782
Website
www.kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$40.00
Unit of cost
school

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$0.00
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)

Each Pirate Math Individual Tutoring manual costs $40. The Pirate Math manual contains 48 lessons. Each lesson has a tutor script (which is reviewed but not read verbatim) and templates for student worksheets. The manual also has templates for math fact flash cards, word-problem sorting cards, graphs to monitor student progress, and treasure maps for motivation. All templates required for implementation are included in the manual. (The only additional materials required are pencils and highlighters.)

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

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

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

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
20
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
16
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?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
4-8 hours of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
One full-day workshop of instruction; practice implementing the procedures alone and with other tutors during the subsequent week; a practice session conducted with a supervisor who provides corrective feedback; tutors studying (not reading) scripts; and meetings among tutors and the supervisor every 2-3 weeks to address problems or questions are they arise.

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 guided implementation of tutoring during the series of studies conducted with Pirate Math both at the site proximal to the developers and at a site distal to the developers, with comparable effects at both sides. The training procedures were identical to those recommended above.

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:

The manuals guided implementation of tutoring during the series of studies conducted with Pirate Math both at the site proximal to the developers and at a site distal to the developers, with comparable effects at both sides. The training procedures were identical to those recommended above.

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.

Study Information

Study Citations

Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L. & Zumeta, R. O. (2009). Remediating Number Combination and Word Problem Deficits among Students with Mathematics Difficulties: A Randomized Control Trial . Journal of Educational Psychology, 101() 561-576.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The study was conducted at two sites, both large urban school districts. Houston was distal and Nashville was proximal to the developers of the tutoring protocols. Third-grade students (n=924) were screened for inclusion in 63 classrooms in 18 schools. Seven schools and 23 classrooms were in Houston; 11 schools and 40 classrooms were in Nashville. Because tutoring focused on NCs or on WPs, we included students with low performance on a calculations screening measure or a WP screening measure. (Screening occurred in step-wise fashion; so students did not receive every measure.) The criterion applied for low performance on the calculations measure was < the 26th percentile. The criterion applied to the 5-item word-problem measure was a score of 0 or 1. (See measures for description of the screening measures.) All 924 students were administered the calculations measure; 302 (33%) scored < the 26th percentile. We administered the 5-item WP screener to 598 students; 170 (28%) scored 0 or 1. Of the 598 students who took the calculations and the WP screening measures, 291 (49%) did not meet the inclusion criterion on either measure; 67 (11%) met only the WP criterion; 137 (23%) met only the calculations criterion; and 103 (17%) met both criteria. The 307 students who met either or both criteria were eligible for further screening on a reading and an abbreviated IQ measure. We excluded students who scored between the 25th and 40th percentiles in reading and students with a T-score below 30 on both IQ subtests. Students scoring < the 26th percentile on the reading measure were classified as having math and reading difficulty (MDRD). Those scoring > 39th percentile were classified as math difficulty alone (MD). Two hundred and two students took all measures. Of these students, 32 (16%) were excluded due to reading scores between the 25th and 40th percentiles; two students were excluded due to low IQ scores; and one student was excluded for both reasons. Thus, 165 students were eligible for tutoring. However, 162 students comprised the actual assignment sample because three students who met all criteria were accidentally not included in the assignment sample. Blocking on site, type of screening difficulty (WPs, calculations, or both), and difficulty status (MD or MDRD), we randomly assigned students to one of three treatment conditions (NC tutoring, WP tutoring, or control). So, the composition of each treatment group was similar in terms of the three blocking variables. Of the 162 students, 13 (8%) moved after randomization but prior to the onset of tutoring, 7 (4%) moved during the school year, 5 (3%) were excluded by parents or schools prior to the onset of tutoring, and 4 (2%) were withdrawn by parents or schools during the school year, leaving 133 who were evaluated at posttest.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
The study was conducted at two sites, both large urban school districts. Houston was distal and Nashville was proximal to the developers of the tutoring protocols. Third-grade students (n=924) were screened for inclusion in 63 classrooms in 18 schools. Seven schools and 23 classrooms were in Houston; 11 schools and 40 classrooms were in Nashville. Because tutoring focused on NCs or on WPs, we included students with low performance on a calculations screening measure or a WP screening measure. (Screening occurred in step-wise fashion; so students did not receive every measure.) The criterion applied for low performance on the calculations measure was < the 26th percentile. The criterion applied to the 5-item word-problem measure was a score of 0 or 1. (See measures for description of the screening measures.) All 924 students were administered the calculations measure; 302 (33%) scored < the 26th percentile. We administered the 5-item WP screener to 598 students; 170 (28%) scored 0 or 1. Of the 598 students who took the calculations and the WP screening measures, 291 (49%) did not meet the inclusion criterion on either measure; 67 (11%) met only the WP criterion; 137 (23%) met only the calculations criterion; and 103 (17%) met both criteria. The 307 students who met either or both criteria were eligible for further screening on a reading and an abbreviated IQ measure. We excluded students who scored between the 25th and 40th percentiles in reading and students with a T-score below 30 on both IQ subtests. Students scoring < the 26th percentile on the reading measure were classified as having math and reading difficulty (MDRD). Those scoring > 39th percentile were classified as math difficulty alone (MD). Two hundred and two students took all measures. Of these students, 32 (16%) were excluded due to reading scores between the 25th and 40th percentiles; two students were excluded due to low IQ scores; and one student was excluded for both reasons. Thus, 165 students were eligible for tutoring. However, 162 students comprised the actual assignment sample because three students who met all criteria were accidentally not included in the assignment sample. Blocking on site, type of screening difficulty (WPs, calculations, or both), and difficulty status (MD or MDRD), we randomly assigned students to one of three treatment conditions (NC tutoring, WP tutoring, or control). So, the composition of each treatment group was similar in terms of the three blocking variables. Of the 162 students, 13 (8%) moved after randomization, but prior to the onset of tutoring, 7 (4%) moved during the school year, 5 (3%) were excluded by parents or schools prior to the onset of tutoring, and 4 (2%) were withdrawn by parents or schools during the school year, leaving 133 who were evaluated at posttest.

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:
WP tutoring or Pirate Math (referred to both ways in study)

Specify which condition is the control condition:
There was a no-tutoring (Tier 1 only) condition, which was the business-as-usual condition, as well as a competing condition, which was an active tutoring condition devoted entirely to number combination (i.e., math facts). This competing condition controlled for tutoring time and for the motivational component of Pirate Math.

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 42 47 1.09
Grade 4
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 24 33 0.46
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 11 9 0.15
White 3 4 0.19
Other 4 1 0.96

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 32 36 0.21
No Subsidized Lunch 10 11 0.07

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities 7 8 0.09
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability 35 39 0.24

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 8 7 0.09
Not English Language Learner 34 40 0.39

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 19 16 0.18
Male 23 31 0.40

Mean Effect Size

0.35

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.
Blocking on site, type of screening difficulty (WPs, calculations, or both), and difficulty status (MD or MDRD), we randomly assigned students to one of three treatment conditions (NC tutoring, WP tutoring, or control).

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?
selected Individually
not selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

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

Weeks
16.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
25.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The tutors were part-time or full-time employees of the research project. In Houston, tutors were not certified teachers, and they were drawn from the community. Each tutor had an undergraduate degree, but the degrees were not necessarily in education-related fields. In Nashville, tutors were graduate students across departments at Vanderbilt University (3 were certified teachers; 9 were not). The graduate students were not necessarily in education programs. Tutors were trained as follows: 1 session of instruction; practice implementing the procedures alone and with each other during the subsequent week; a practice session conducted with a supervisor who provides corrective feedback; tutors studying (not reading) scripts; and meeting among tutors and the supervisor every 2-3 weeks to address problems or questions as they arise.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Every tutoring session was audiotaped. Four research assistants independently listened to tapes while completing a checklist to identify the percentage of essential points in that lesson. We sampled 16.8 of tapes such that treatments, tutors, and lesson types at each site were examined comparably.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
At the site where the protocols had been developed (Nashville), the mean percentage of points addressed was 98.1 (SD=2.06) for number combinations (competing) tutoring and 98.4 (SD=2.79) for WP (Pirate Math) tutoring. In Houston, the mean percentage of points addressed was 99.5 (SD=0.47) for number combinations (competing) tutoring and 99.2 (SD=0.68) for WP (Pirate Math) tutoring. Tutors also recorded the duration of each session. In Nashville, tutoring min averaged 1032 (SD=85.08) for number combinations (competing) tutoring and 997 (SD=130.25) for WP (Pirate Math) tutoring. In Houston, total tutoring min averaged 1155 (SD=130.09) for number combinations (competing) tutoring and 1158 (SD=184.69) for WP (Pirate Math) tutoring. Analysis of variance revealed a significant effect for site, F(1,82)=15.68, p<.001, with more time in Houston than Nashville. More pertinently, the effect for treatment condition was not significant, F(1,82)=0.18, p=.669; neither was the interaction between treatment and site, F(1,82)=0.27, p =.603.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

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?
not selected Full sample
not 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 conducted distributional exploration of each measure via statistical (e.g., skewness, kurtosis) and graphical (e.g., box plots, stem and leaf plots) means. Generally, the standardized variables were normally distributed at both time points. However, Vanderbilt Story Problems was positively skewed and kurtotic at both time points, and Find X was negatively skewed at pretest and bimodal at posttest. In the case of Vanderbilt Story Problems, a square-root transformation was completed, which improved distribution; however, because results for the original and the transformed variables were similar, results of the original variable are presented for ease of interpretation. Similarly, for Find X, logistic analyses (dichotomizing scores into high and low) yielded similar results as the original variables; so we retained the original form. Number Sentences at pretest and procedural computations at posttest also showed some skewness, but transformations did not generally improve distributions. Age was unrelated to pre- or posttest performance. Also, tutoring time was unrelated to all but two outcomes, and in this case, the relation was small and did not interact with other effects or change conclusions. Therefore, these variables are not reported. The factors of interest were difficulty status (MD vs. MDRD), site (Houston vs. Nashville), and tutoring condition (number combinations, i.e., competing condition, tutoring vs. WP, i.e., Pirate Math, tutoring vs. control).

Additional Research

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

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: One qualifying study of Pirate Math took place in Nashville and Houston. Low-achieving students in Pirate Math were compared to similar control students. On Key Math, students in Pirate Math scored significantly higher than controls, with an effect size of +0.37. This qualified Pirate Math for the ESSA “Strong” category.

Number of Studies: 1

Average Effect Size: 0.37

Full Report

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
3
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Fuchs, L.S., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.R., Cirino, P.T., Fletcher, J.M., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combinations skill among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 89-100. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.003

Fuchs, L.S., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Cirino, P.T., Fletcher, J.M., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Zumeta, R.O. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 561-576. doi:10.1037/a0014701

Fuchs, L.S., Seethaler, P.M., Powell, S.R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Fletcher, J.M. (2008) Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155-173.

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.