Closing the word-problem achievement gap in first grade: Schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language comprehension instruction.

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to test the effects of word-problem (WP) intervention, with versus without embedded language comprehension (LC) instruction, on at-risk 1st graders' WP performance. We also isolated the need for a structured approach to WP intervention and tested the efficacy of schema-based instruction at 1st grade. Children (n ϭ 391; M age ϭ 6.53, SD ϭ 0.32) were randomly assigned to 4 conditions: schema-based WP intervention with embedded language instruction, the same WP intervention but without LC instruction, structured number knowledge (NK) intervention without a structured WP component, and a control group. Each intervention included 45 sessions, each 30 min long. Multilevel models, accounting for classroom and school effects, revealed the efficacy of schemabased WP intervention at 1st grade, with both WP conditions outperforming the NK condition and the control group. Yet, WP performance was significantly stronger for the schema-based condition with embedded LC instruction compared to the schema-based condition without LC instruction. NK intervention conveyed no WP advantage over the control group, even though all 3 intervention conditions outperformed the control group on arithmetic. Results demonstrate the importance of a structured approach to WP intervention, the efficacy of schema-based instruction at 1st grade, and the added value of LC instruction within WP intervention. Results also provide causal evidence on the role of LC in WP solving. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThis study yields three conclusions about effective word-problem (WP) intervention for at-risk first graders. The first conclusion is that arithmetic intervention does not improve WP performance; instead, structured WP intervention is required. Second, structured schema-based WP intervention, which teaches children to understand WPs in terms of problem types and to align problem-solving strategies with the problem type, improves WP performance. Third, schema-based WP intervention is more effective when it embeds WP language instruction that teaches children the importance of understanding language in the context of the complete WP (not as key words).

Comorbidity Between Math and Reading Problems: Is Phonological Processing a Mutual Factor?

“…Language-related interventions have been suggested as a tool for ameliorating math problems. For instance, for language comprehension, Fuchs et al ( 2020 ) recently demonstrated the effects of a vocabulary and language intervention on word problem-solving. If we had found a large indirect effect, one could perhaps suggest something similar for phonology—that number-related phoneme awareness interventions in preschool could ameliorate arithmetic difficulties.…”

Developmental dynamics between reading and math in elementary school

“…The study shows that reading developmental processes strengthed the longitudinal association between reading and math, in particular, for children with higher levels of reading performance and lower levels of math performance. This finding implies that it would be worthwhile to implement interventions, in particular ones targeting language and reading for children who exhibit lower levels of reading and are at‐risk for math difficulties (e.g., Fuchs et al, 2020). Tracking the subsequent results in both reading and math performance would be particularly valuable as the results would show us whether immediate impact on language and reading would be expected to also boost children's math performance.…”

Comorbid Learning Difficulties in Reading and Mathematics: The Role of Intelligence and In-Class Attentive Behavior

“…The current study provides a broad assessment of the domaingeneral cognitive, as well as the non-cognitive factors, that are common and unique to individual differences in reading and mathematics achievement and in the prediction of comorbid learning difficulties. As noted, identifying the domain-general cognitive abilities that contribute to mathematics and reading achievement will have implications for the development of interventions for students who are at-risk for academic difficulties (Fuchs et al, 2013(Fuchs et al, , 2019(Fuchs et al, , 2020. The inclusion of non-cognitive factors greatly broadens the study of these atrisk students and could have implications for understanding their long-term engagement in the domain.…”

“…Interventions that reduce risk of academic difficulties thus have the potential for long-term benefits for at-risk individuals and the communities in which they will eventually reside. Fuchs et al (2013Fuchs et al ( , 2019 demonstrated that students' responsiveness to such interventions is influenced by their preexisting domaingeneral abilities, such as working memory, and that more effective interventions can be developed with the inclusion of supports that address any domain-general weaknesses (Fuchs et al, 2020). As an example, speeded (timed) practice of just-learned number knowledge benefited students with weak non-verbal reasoning abilities, whereas non-speeded practice did not.…”