Effects of Tutorial Interventions in Mathematics and Attention for Low-Performing Preschool Children

Barnes, Marcia A.; Klein, Alice; Swank, Paul R.; Starkey, Prentice; McCandliss, Bruce D.; Flynn, Kylie; Zucker, Tricia A.; Huang, Chun Wei; Fall, Anna-Mária; Roberts, Greg

doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1191575

Cited by 38 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that compare the effectiveness of number-specific training alone (e.g., counting training) or a combination of the two (e.g., with simultaneous working memory training) on early numeracy skills in typically developing children, show that number-specific training appears to produce the greatest improvements (Kroesbergen et al, 2012; Kyttala et al, 2015). This was also found to be the case in the tutorial-based math intervention study discussed above for very low performing preschool children (Barnes et al, 2016). In this study, attention training combined with the math intervention did not produce any added benefit for mathematics learning than the same math intervention alone; however, similar to many other studies that just employ cognitive training with preschool children, the attention intervention was remarkably non-intensive in comparison to the typical number-specific math interventions that have been designed and tested for children with or at risk for MLD.…”

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Mathematical concepts and procedures can be instructed in young children, and this is true for both typically developing preschool and kindergarten children and preschoolers and kindergarteners identified as at risk for mathematical difficulties (Barnes et al, 2016; Toll & Van Luit, 2012; van de Rijt, & van Luit, 1998), though the extent of transfer to later, formal math skills remains a matter for debate, particularly for children at significant risk for MLD. It is beyond the scope of this paper to review early numeracy interventions.…”

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a randomized controlled trial, we have tested the effectiveness of a tutorial-based mathematics intervention for preschool children who scored at a very low level on a preschool math screening measure compared to their other low-income peers (Barnes et al, 2016). This intensive tutorial-based mathematics intervention focused largely on numbers and operations and early spatial sense and geometry.…”

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because one of the sites had a more supportive Tier 1 early numeracy program than the other, we could also see the effect of combining a highly supportive mathematics instruction at the classroom level with a more intensive higher tier of early math instruction. The children who received intensive math instruction through their Tier 1 classroom curriculum and through the tutorial program had the best math outcomes (Barnes et al, 2016). These results suggest that early interventions for children at highest risk for later MLD are most effective when they include a strong classroom-based program in combination with additional higher tiers of math instruction.…”

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Early numeracy skills in preschool-aged children: a review of neurocognitive findings and implications for assessment and intervention

Raghubar

Barnes

2016

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The goals are to 1) provide a review of the typical and atypical development of early numeracy; 2) present what is known about the neurocognitive underpinnings of early numeracy; and 3) discuss the implications for early assessment and intervention. Method: Studies on the development of typical and atypical early numeracy are reviewed with a particular focus on longitudinal findings including those from our work on spina bifida myelomeningocele. Implications of this research for assessment are presented. The paper ends with a discussion of early math interventions. Results: Learning to count, identify numbers, and compare and manipulate quantities are key early numeracy skills. These are powerful predictors of school-age mathematical learning and performance. General neurocognitive abilities such as working memory and language, are also important for the development of early numeracy. It is recommended that early assessment for risk of mathematical learning difficulties include tests of both early number knowledge and key neurocognitive abilities. Math-specific interventions are most effective for improving early numeracy. There is currently little evidence that training of general cognitive functions transfers to mathematical learning. Conclusion: Understanding the development of early numeracy skills and their neurocognitive predictors offer important insights into early assessment and intervention for children at risk for or with mathematical learning difficulties.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Early Assessment and Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Early numeracy skills in preschool-aged children: a review of neurocognitive findings and implications for assessment and intervention

Raghubar

Barnes

2016

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results are consistent with the growing body of research on effective mathematics instruction, which suggests that individualized practice is an important predictor of mathematics achievement for at-risk learners (Gersten et al, 2009). In kindergarten, practice opportunities are at a premium because many students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, receive few opportunities to build early number sense prior to school entry (Barnes et al, 2016). Therefore, one interpretation from our results is that the implementation of explicit, core mathematics programs, such as ELM, are necessary to support the development of early mathematical proficiency among these at-risk kindergarten students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Components of Explicit Instruction Explain the Differential Effectiveness of a Core Mathematics Program for Kindergarten Students With Mathematics Difficulties? A Mediated Moderation Analysis

Doabler

Stoolmiller

Kennedy

et al. 2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of research suggests that the effects of core mathematics instruction on student mathematics outcomes may not be uniform across different skill levels in mathematics. This study investigated the extent to which observed components of explicit mathematics instruction explained why students’ initial mathematics achievement was previously found to moderate the treatment impact of an empirically validated, core kindergarten mathematics program. Instructional components examined were as follows: (a) teacher demonstrations and explanations of mathematical concepts, (b) group and individual student practice opportunities, and (c) teacher-delivered academic feedback. Findings suggest that the rate in which teachers facilitated individual student practice opportunities during core mathematics instruction explained the program’s differential effectiveness. Implications in terms of differentiating practice opportunities for at-risk learners and utilizing classroom observation data to test potential mediating variables of academic interventions are discussed.

show abstract

Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review

McCartan,

Roberts,

Jordan

2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGlobally, children are legally obliged to attend school at a certain age (ranging from 4 to 7 years old). Developmental differences are rarely considered at school entry nor are they always reflected in the teaching and learning environment. Children who start school without being ready to cope may be significantly disadvantaged. Failure at school can impact directly on long‐term outcomes such as unemployment, crime, adolescent pregnancy, and psychological and physical morbidity in adulthood. In contrast, experiencing success at school can impact positively on a child's self esteem, behaviour, attitude, and future outcomes. School readiness interventions aim to prepare a child for the academic content of education and the psychosocial competencies considered important for learning such as self‐regulation, listening, following instructions and learning to share in play and other social settings. There is a need for evidence of the effectiveness of centre‐based school readiness interventions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of centre‐based interventions for improving school readiness in preschool children.Search MethodsIn October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, ERIC, eight additional databases and three trials registers. Other eligible studies were identified through handsearches of reference lists, reports, reviews and relevant websites.Selection CriteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs comparing centre‐based school readiness interventions to no intervention, wait‐list control or treatment as usual (TAU) for children (aged three to 7 years before starting compulsory education). The primary outcomes were school readiness and adverse effects.Data Collection and AnalysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.Main ResultsWe included data from 32 trials involving 16,899 children (6590 included in at least one meta‐analysis). Four studies compared centre‐based early education interventions with no treatment controls. Twenty‐two trials compared an enriched school curriculum to treatment as usual (TAU). Children were aged between 3 and 7 years old (mean age 4.4 years), 51.7% were boys and at least 70% were from a racial/ethnic minority group. Most studies were conducted in the USA and mainly located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions were delivered in centre‐based settings (pre‐kindergarten or elementary schools), for at least one half day, 4 days per week over the academic year. Follow‐up ranged from up to 1 year (short‐term), 1–2 years (medium‐term) and over 2 years (long‐term). We judged the certainty of evidence to be very low to moderate across all outcome measures. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical heterogeneity. Most studies were considered to be low or unclear risk for selection, detection, performance, attrition, selective reporting, and other bias. Allocation bias was at high risk in 10 studies. The US federal government funded most of the studies.Comparison 1. Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus no interventionCognitive development. There may be little to no difference in cognitive development between centre‐based early education interventions and no intervention at long‐term follow‐up (MD: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.23 to 6.34; p = 0.04; 2 studies, 361 participants; low certainty evidence).Emotional well‐being and social competence. There may be no clear difference in social skills in centre‐based early education interventions compared to the no intervention control group at short‐term follow‐up (SMD: −0.11, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.33; p = 0.63; 3 studies, 632 participants; low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial (I² = 71%).Health development. Narrative analysis from a single study showed that centre‐based early education interventions may improve health development outcomes such as health checks, immunisation compliance and dental care (1 study, 142 participants; low certainty evidence).None of the studies reported on school readiness, adverse effects, or physical development.Comparison 2. Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus TAUSchool readiness. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of centre‐based early education interventions compared to TAU on school readiness up to 1 year post‐intervention (SMD: 1.17, 95% CI: −0.61 to 2.95; p = 0.20; 2 studies, 374 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 95%).Cognitive development. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on cognitive development between centre‐based early education interventions and TAU at long‐term follow‐up (MD: 9.34, 95% CI: −6.64 to 25.32; p = 0.25; 2 studies, 136 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 92%).Emotional well‐being and social competence. A meta‐analysis of 12 studies demonstrated there may be little to no difference in social skills between centre‐based early education interventions and TAU at short‐term follow‐up (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.28; p = 0.19; 12 studies, 4806 participants; low certainty evidence).Physical development. Evidence from one study showed that centre‐based early education interventions likely have little to no difference in increasing fine motor skills compared to TAU at short‐term follow‐up (MD: 0.80, 95% CI: −1.11 to 2.71; 1 study, 334 participants; moderate certainty evidence).None of the studies measured adverse effects or health development.Authors' ConclusionsWe found very low, low and moderate‐certainty evidence that centre‐based interventions convey little to no difference to children starting school compared to no intervention or TAU, up to 1 year. More research, measuring relevant outcomes, conducted outside the USA, is required to improve programmes designed to meet the needs of children starting school.

show abstract

Effects of Tutorial Interventions in Mathematics and Attention for Low-Performing Preschool Children

Cited by 38 publications

References 57 publications

Early numeracy skills in preschool-aged children: a review of neurocognitive findings and implications for assessment and intervention

Early numeracy skills in preschool-aged children: a review of neurocognitive findings and implications for assessment and intervention

Do Components of Explicit Instruction Explain the Differential Effectiveness of a Core Mathematics Program for Kindergarten Students With Mathematics Difficulties? A Mediated Moderation Analysis

Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About