Schema-based word-problem intervention improves multiplicative fraction word-problem solving, with no advantage of the explaining component on that outcome¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 WP outscored EXP (ES = 1.48) and CON (ES = 1.20) on word problems; EXP and CON did not differ significantly (ES = 0.12). → 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 · i3 · causal · r2

Analysis of covariance on the word-problem outcome in the RCT, controlling pretest and the pretest-by-condition interaction. The article reports "WP outscored EXP (ES = 1.48)"; equivalence between EXP and CON was not tested.

"WP outscored EXP (ES = 1.48) and CON (ES = 1.20), with no significant difference between EXP and CON (ES = 0.12)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Proportional Reasoning — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Reasoning moderates the word-problem intervention's advantage, and the intervention did not compensate for low reasoning — related
• Supported self-explaining produces higher-quality explanations of fraction magnitude differences than a word-problem component — related
• Supported self-explaining improves accuracy of fraction magnitude comparisons more than a word-problem intervention component in at-risk fourth graders — related
• The multi-component measurement-focused fraction intervention outperforms part-whole-focused control on NAEP items, number line estimation, and calculations — related
• Working memory compensatorily moderates the explaining intervention's advantage: supported self-explaining benefits students with weaker working memory most — related