Loading…

Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention

We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants o...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Child development 2020-03, Vol.91 (2), p.382-400
Main Authors:	Bailey, Drew H., Fuchs, Lynn S., Gilbert, Jennifer K., Geary, David C., Fuchs, Douglas
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Subjects:	Academic Success Arithmetic At risk populations At Risk Students Child Comparative Analysis Elementary School Students Female Follow-Up Studies Followup Studies Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Humans Intervention Male Mathematical Concepts Mathematics Mathematics - education Mathematics Achievement Mathematics Instruction Mathematics skills Mathematics Tests Outcomes of Education Reading Reading Tests Students Teaching Methods Variants
Citations:	Items that this one cites Items that cite this one
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

cited_by	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343
cites	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343
container_end_page	400
container_issue	2
container_start_page	382
container_title	Child development
container_volume	91
creator	Bailey, Drew H. Fuchs, Lynn S. Gilbert, Jennifer K. Geary, David C. Fuchs, Douglas
description	We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first‐grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow‐up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first‐grade math skills overestimates long‐term intervention effects.
doi_str_mv	10.1111/cdev.13175
format	article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2125298803</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1246045</ericid><sourcerecordid>2371627161</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1O3DAUha2qqAzQTfcgS92gSqH-S-ywqYbpDFDRn0WpxMryONeqUSYZ7GQQuz5Cn5EnwUMGFiywZFlX59M51j0IfaDkiKbz2VawOqKcyvwNGlFRyEwVTLxFI0JImfGSkW20E-N1GllR8ndomxOeK6roCPW_Aqyg6XzbHOMfYCFGE-7wSd_h8yb2znnrk_wFjzG7__f_CkzAs7au29s0XS5x67Bp8NQ5sJ1fAZ75ELsknQZTAf5uur-wMJ23Mdl1EDZRe2jLmTrC-827iy5n09-Ts-zi5-n5ZHyRWaHyPOMqL7lysiyhAFYZpeZ0LrmqqLRuTiWTknEhRG5NaUDyorBAGECluBSKC76LDgffZWhveoidXvhooa5NA20fNaMsZ6VShCf04wv0uu1Dk36nGZe0YOnSRH0aKBvaGAM4vQx-kTamKdHrMvS6DP1YRoIPNpb9fAHVM_q0_QTsDwAEb5_l6TfKREHE2oAO-q2v4e6VKD35Ov0zhD4AXQqfUQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2371627161</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>EBSCOhost MLA International Bibliography With Full Text</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><creator>Bailey, Drew H. ; Fuchs, Lynn S. ; Gilbert, Jennifer K. ; Geary, David C. ; Fuchs, Douglas</creator><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Drew H. ; Fuchs, Lynn S. ; Gilbert, Jennifer K. ; Geary, David C. ; Fuchs, Douglas</creatorcontrib><description>We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first‐grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow‐up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first‐grade math skills overestimates long‐term intervention effects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-3920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-8624</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13175</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30358181</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley-Blackwell</publisher><subject>Academic Success ; Arithmetic ; At risk populations ; At Risk Students ; Child ; Comparative Analysis ; Elementary School Students ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Followup Studies ; Grade 1 ; Grade 2 ; Grade 3 ; Humans ; Intervention ; Male ; Mathematical Concepts ; Mathematics ; Mathematics - education ; Mathematics Achievement ; Mathematics Instruction ; Mathematics skills ; Mathematics Tests ; Outcomes of Education ; Reading ; Reading Tests ; Students ; Teaching Methods ; Variants</subject><ispartof>Child development, 2020-03, Vol.91 (2), p.382-400</ispartof><rights>2018 Society for Research in Child Development</rights><rights>2018 Society for Research in Child Development.</rights><rights>Child Development © 2020 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6342-886X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,30998,33222</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1246045$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30358181$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Drew H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchs, Lynn S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilbert, Jennifer K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geary, David C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchs, Douglas</creatorcontrib><title>Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention</title><title>Child development</title><addtitle>Child Dev</addtitle><description>We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first‐grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow‐up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first‐grade math skills overestimates long‐term intervention effects.</description><subject>Academic Success</subject><subject>Arithmetic</subject><subject>At risk populations</subject><subject>At Risk Students</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Followup Studies</subject><subject>Grade 1</subject><subject>Grade 2</subject><subject>Grade 3</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical Concepts</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Mathematics - education</subject><subject>Mathematics Achievement</subject><subject>Mathematics Instruction</subject><subject>Mathematics skills</subject><subject>Mathematics Tests</subject><subject>Outcomes of Education</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>Reading Tests</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Variants</subject><issn>0009-3920</issn><issn>1467-8624</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1O3DAUha2qqAzQTfcgS92gSqH-S-ywqYbpDFDRn0WpxMryONeqUSYZ7GQQuz5Cn5EnwUMGFiywZFlX59M51j0IfaDkiKbz2VawOqKcyvwNGlFRyEwVTLxFI0JImfGSkW20E-N1GllR8ndomxOeK6roCPW_Aqyg6XzbHOMfYCFGE-7wSd_h8yb2znnrk_wFjzG7__f_CkzAs7au29s0XS5x67Bp8NQ5sJ1fAZ75ELsknQZTAf5uur-wMJ23Mdl1EDZRe2jLmTrC-827iy5n09-Ts-zi5-n5ZHyRWaHyPOMqL7lysiyhAFYZpeZ0LrmqqLRuTiWTknEhRG5NaUDyorBAGECluBSKC76LDgffZWhveoidXvhooa5NA20fNaMsZ6VShCf04wv0uu1Dk36nGZe0YOnSRH0aKBvaGAM4vQx-kTamKdHrMvS6DP1YRoIPNpb9fAHVM_q0_QTsDwAEb5_l6TfKREHE2oAO-q2v4e6VKD35Ov0zhD4AXQqfUQ</recordid><startdate>202003</startdate><enddate>202003</enddate><creator>Bailey, Drew H.</creator><creator>Fuchs, Lynn S.</creator><creator>Gilbert, Jennifer K.</creator><creator>Geary, David C.</creator><creator>Fuchs, Douglas</creator><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6342-886X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202003</creationdate><title>Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention</title><author>Bailey, Drew H. ; Fuchs, Lynn S. ; Gilbert, Jennifer K. ; Geary, David C. ; Fuchs, Douglas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Academic Success</topic><topic>Arithmetic</topic><topic>At risk populations</topic><topic>At Risk Students</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Followup Studies</topic><topic>Grade 1</topic><topic>Grade 2</topic><topic>Grade 3</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical Concepts</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Mathematics - education</topic><topic>Mathematics Achievement</topic><topic>Mathematics Instruction</topic><topic>Mathematics skills</topic><topic>Mathematics Tests</topic><topic>Outcomes of Education</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>Reading Tests</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Variants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Drew H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchs, Lynn S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilbert, Jennifer K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geary, David C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchs, Douglas</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Child development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bailey, Drew H.</au><au>Fuchs, Lynn S.</au><au>Gilbert, Jennifer K.</au><au>Geary, David C.</au><au>Fuchs, Douglas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1246045</ericid><atitle>Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention</atitle><jtitle>Child development</jtitle><addtitle>Child Dev</addtitle><date>2020-03</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>382</spage><epage>400</epage><pages>382-400</pages><issn>0009-3920</issn><eissn>1467-8624</eissn><abstract>We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first‐grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow‐up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first‐grade math skills overestimates long‐term intervention effects.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley-Blackwell</pub><pmid>30358181</pmid><doi>10.1111/cdev.13175</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6342-886X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 0009-3920
ispartof	Child development, 2020-03, Vol.91 (2), p.382-400
issn	0009-3920 1467-8624
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2125298803
source	Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); EBSCOhost MLA International Bibliography With Full Text; Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; ERIC
subjects	Academic Success Arithmetic At risk populations At Risk Students Child Comparative Analysis Elementary School Students Female Follow-Up Studies Followup Studies Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Humans Intervention Male Mathematical Concepts Mathematics Mathematics - education Mathematics Achievement Mathematics Instruction Mathematics skills Mathematics Tests Outcomes of Education Reading Reading Tests Students Teaching Methods Variants
title	Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of an Effective First‐Grade Mathematics Intervention
url	http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T19%3A30%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prevention:%20Necessary%20But%20Insufficient?%20A%202%E2%80%90Year%20Follow%E2%80%90Up%20of%20an%20Effective%20First%E2%80%90Grade%20Mathematics%20Intervention&rft.jtitle=Child%20development&rft.au=Bailey,%20Drew%20H.&rft.date=2020-03&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=382&rft.epage=400&rft.pages=382-400&rft.issn=0009-3920&rft.eissn=1467-8624&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cdev.13175&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2371627161%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4855-385938f799e6e2da88b1b738d17cfb17277234445ca9ae7366ce02eed83748343%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2371627161&rft_id=info:pmid/30358181&rft_ericid=EJ1246045&rfr_iscdi=true