Reasoning moderates the word-problem intervention's advantage, and the intervention did not compensate for low reasoning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Effects favoring WP over EXP on word problems were not significant for very low reasoning students and transitioned to nonsignificance at 1.81 SDs below the sample mean. → Fuchs 2016

Evidence¶

Fuchs 2016¶

Fuchs, L. S., Malone, A., Schumacher, R. F., Namkung, J., Hamlett, C. L., Jordan, N. C., Siegler, R. S., Gersten, R., & Changas, P. (2016). Supported Self-Explaining during Fraction Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000073

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Moderation analysis on the word-problem outcome; reasoning was the only significant moderator (R2 = .51, F(7,134) = 20.20, p < .001). No effect size printed, so impact is null.

"The effect favoring WP transitioned to nonsignificance at 1.81 SDs below the at-risk sample mean on reasoning. Thus, the intervention did not adequately compensate for the word-problem demands."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Proportional Reasoning — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Working memory compensatorily moderates the explaining intervention's advantage: supported self-explaining benefits students with weaker working memory most — related
• Schema-based word-problem intervention improves multiplicative fraction word-problem solving, with no advantage of the explaining component on that outcome — related
• Supported self-explaining improves accuracy of fraction magnitude comparisons more than a word-problem intervention component in at-risk fourth graders — related
• Supported self-explaining produces higher-quality explanations of fraction magnitude differences than a word-problem component — related